Bears

>>1021984
I stay away from places they hang out. Like gay bars and /lure/.

>>1021984
I wouldn't worry about it.

t. bear

>>1021988
what does "t." mean?

File: 1492914671359.png (105KB, 778x778px)

105KB, 778x778px

Sing the anon's happy flute tune and the bears will keep away. They hate music.

>>1021990
take it from

Plenty of videos on youtube showing bears being deterred by both guns and by bear mace. Plenty of videos on youtube showing bears not being deterred by bear mace.

>>1022000
There are no videos on youtube showing bears not being deterred by bear mace

>>1021990
>>1021995
It's an abbreviation of a Finnish word. It's a sign off equivalent to "regards."

>>1022001
Well that's a lie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nU5cMZymSr0

>>1021984
Easy. I live and /out/ somewhere with no bears.

t. cornbelter

>>1022007
Holy shit what a fucking annoying woman.

But anyways the bear was obviously deterred you mong. She could have chased it away from the kayak if she ran at it spraying

>>1022007
The boat wasn't the one spraying it.

>>1022011
>continued chewing on kayak as if nothing was wrong, even after getting sprayed directly by bear mace
>"it was obviously deterred tho"
I don't think you know what "deter" means, anon.

>>1022012
Are you a little touched in the head? Would you prefer if the boat were animate? Maybe you need to go back to watching your Disney movies.

>>1021984
the only reason to fear black bears is if you know literally NOTHING about bears

if you're a full grown man it's HIGHLY unlikely that a cougar will attack you either

only excuse for bear spray is if you're going somewhere with an exceptional quantity of grizzly bears where attacks actually happen, which is ALMOST nowhere

>>1022017
You are an moron.

There is still no evidence that bear spray is 100% effective

>>1022019
OK anon but then why are there black bear fatalities recorded every year?

>>1022019
>I'm too MANLY to be attacked by a bear
>HIGH TEE!!
>HOO RAH!

>>1022021
You seem confused.

>>1022024
Stupid people, children, and the elderly.

Also at least 3 from last year were people dying when they hit a bear in a car on the interstate.

>>1022039
>HIGH TEE

You've never even seen a bear outside of a zoo.

>>1022040
I've actually hunted bears, and have killed a grizzly (not in self defense but not while actively hunting one) and 2 black bears (actively hunted) though.

Black bears are not a threat to an adult that isn't completely retarded, provided it's a "normal" black bear and not rabid or stuck in an urban/suburban setting. Full stop. They *are* a threat to people who are already injured, the elderly/infirm, and children.

Same shit with mountain lions.

>>1022043
Starving bears and lions will attacks humans for food tho.

>>1022043
>IVE DUN KILLED BEARS
>HIGH TEE!!!!

You're a walking stereotype.

>>1022043
And no, I don't believe that you've killed three bears, in case the blaring alarm of my bullshit detector wasn't obvious from my liberal use of sarcasm.

File: high t.jpg (558KB, 3000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

558KB, 3000x2000px

HIGH T. I DUN KILT BURRZ! IFFA BURR GETSYA, YOU JUST A WEAK GRAMMA IS ALL. U LOW T CHILE!

>Best rule for avoiding a nasty bear encounter: make enough noise to warn them of your approach.
>Catching a bear by surprise or with cubs is the worst case scenario. Noise is your friend. A walking stick used to clack around is good.
>Bear spray is good, but don't use it unless practicing or in danger. If you piss off the animal and it still manages to get you, you're extra screwed.
>Freeze +P is a good alternative to pepper spray
>Be aware of wind during spray use. Spray a cloud between you and the thread, and slowly back out. Fire directly into animal's eyes and nose during a charge, then move out of the way: it may keep charging.
>All healthy black bears climb; some browns do too. While most blackies will retreat from men, some lose their fear and can be dangerous.
>Big cats are more dangerous
>Illegals get killed by cougars around the border all the time; often don't get reported.
>Keep your distance from overhangs and thick brush: cougars usually attack from above or behind, and go for the head or neck.
>If a cougar doesn't want you to know it's there, you won't know. Unless you are vigilant and foil its ambush.
>If you hear snarling from the brush, back out the way you came. It didn't have to warn you, but it is.
>If you shoot either bear or cougar, expect the situation to get 10x worse if you don't hit the CNS. Reserve such for life-threatening situations.
>Carry a few road flares. They can be a good deterrent if you think you're being followed or used to make a fire, even in wet weather. If the animal isn't afraid of fire, something's wrong with it. Prepare to use lethal force.
>Check missing persons maps and animal sightings before entering an area. DO NOT ALWAYS TRUST OFFICIAL STATEMENTS. Parks, etc. don't want to lose revenue so don't expect a thorough, historied account of events, and expensive regulations keep many states from officially declaring cougars. If the locals say there are cougars, there are cougars.
>Consider a transponder

>>1022083
Thank you for the excellent post friend

>>1022024
>why are there black bear fatalities recorded every year?

a) retards approach/antogonize them for pictures
b) they wind up in a populated area, learn that humans = food (from cars, dumpsters, etc etc) and end up attacking one

notice how neither of these instances apply if you're in the woods and not a fucking retard who wants an instagram photo

>>1021984
if you see a bear, the best thing to do is pull your pants and underwear down and assume the doggy style position whilst spreading your ass cheeks as wide as possible. if you have god's blessing, the bear will smell your smelly asshole and get horny and either fuck you or run away. either is better than getting mauled. my dad taught me this when i was a kid and had me practice with him, just to be safe.

>>1022026
>>I'm too MANLY to be attacked by a bear

every time I've seen one I've been scared, despite the fact that all (4) times they've turned a 180 and ran the second that they saw me

>>1022089
No problem. I take this stuff seriously. It wouldn't hurt for you to learn animal sign, such as tree rubbings, to help identify what's in the area. Most of that can be sampled online. Also, be aware that predators tend to parallel game trails. If you know how to ID game trails, you can monitor what's around, what's hunting it, etc. And don't be startled if you enter an area with cougar and you find evidence of them tracking people: they do that. They'll even double around and follow you as you track them. Often, they're just curious or trying to assess a potential threat but they have been known to hunt people, even in groups, even in national parks. So while the risk is relatively miniscule, it's something to remember. I'd be more concerned about tick and mosquito-borne illness, and snake bites, really.

Also, there are things in the woods that polite society doesn't recognize and I'm sure would draw no shortage of mockery on this board. Just trust your gut, don't shoot at anything unless it's absolutely do-or-die, and leave should you not know what you're dealing with. Soloing isn't always the best option. Especially in the Deep South. Even the wood rats will have a go at you if you catch them in a mood.

>>1022083
>Illegals get killed by cougars around the border all the time; often don´t get reported.

Oh shit, really?

>>1021984
I don't bring bear spray, but I bring an Ursack to keep bears from getting my food
It keeps rodents out too

>>1022007

Haha stupid bitch.

I encounter bears a lot because I go camping a lot.

Black bears are pussies. Just yell at them and they run off 99% of the time. They can be nosy but I've never had one charge at me.

Brown bears on the other hand can be aggressive if they have cubs arohnd or there's food.

I keep a loaded shotgun with me in my tent at night but really the best defense is having a dog. Any dog ain't scared of shit. They will run up and bark at anything. People make the mistake of trying to pull their dogs behind them or away from bears but all that does it make you the target. Let the dog do its thing and keep your dog between you and the bear. The beAr will see you as the "cub" and your dog is protecting you. I've had my boxer dog chase off Kia Soul size bears and come back wagging its tail. Of course it's dumb ass won't leave snakes alone but as long as your dog doesn't fuck with the cubs and only barks and chases the big bear, it probably won't get hurt. My boxer is reaching 12 years old and it's still my best camping buddy.

>>1021987
What is /lure/

>>1022021
it's not 100% but 70% more effective than guns.

I have the same fears as well. I want to start fly fishing, and want to fish streams/rivers in the foothills and Rockies near where I live in Alberta. I'm terrified of a bear or cougar sneaking up on me.

>>1021984
Shotgun with slugs or a large caliber rifle.

>>1022151
found the guntard who will blatantly ignore all reason or evidence in the off chance he can brag about shooting a bear that looked at him.

>>1022017
>sprayed directly by bear mace
actually he just got a little whiff, look at some riot vids if you want to see how sprayed directly in the face looks like!

>>1022083
Would .357 magnum or .45 acp be enough to stop a black bear or cougar? Looking into getting a handgun to carry while /out/.

>>1022152
Fucking idiot.

File: 1442997175916.jpg (44KB, 500x574px)

44KB, 500x574px

>>1022083

Wow I was only afraid of bears, and now I am afraid more of the cougars, also:
>Illegals get killed by cougars around the border all the time; often don't get reported.
wtf man

>>1022152
this

>>1021990
there was a finnish shitposter on /int/ or /sp/ who would end every post with that sign off

>>1022143
see
>>1021925

>>1022008
>Doesn't know about corn bears.

>>1021984
I bring a shotgun.

File: 1490464135274.png (968KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

968KB, 1080x1920px

>>1022000
YouTube us not exactly a reliable source.

A large study done in Alaska of 100s of bear attacks showed bear spray had a 99% effective rate of detering an aggressive bear. The study found no cases where bear spray was used, and someone was killed.

On the other hand guns had the same effective rate as doing nothing at all. About 80% effective rate. People who had no gun or spray had something like an 81% effective rate of detering an aggressive bear by just yelling.

While the study found not a single person killed by bears when using bear spray, and no serious injuries, they found like 12 people killed after using guns, and many more serious life altering injuries.

The study also found that using a gun, with all other factors eliminated, increased the likelihood a bear would seriously injure you. A wounded bear was found to be more likely to continue to attack.

File: clapping-gif7.gif (1MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x240px

>>1022217
Quality 5-star post.

>>1022217
B-BUT MUH GUNS

>>1022139
Terrible advice. Allowing a dog to 'chase' a bear can lead to the dog running back to you with the bear in hot persuit, leading to an attack

>>1022245
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yk6_HBXhgUs

File: cougar safety.jpg (320KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 640x480px

>>1022167
be safe anon use rubber!

File: No, bear spray is totally all you need bro!.png (2MB, 1284x1340px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1284x1340px

>>1021984
>Todd orr (pic related) was hiking in bear country, shouting singing and making plenty of noise by his own admission with a large bore hunting revolver on his hip and several cans of bear spray
>Despite this he came across a mama grizzly roughly 80 meters away
>The mother went into the bush and emerged 60 meters away and charged todd orr
>Todd chose bear spray and emptied an entire can of it at the perfect time in perfect conditions and nailed the bear with the entire can as it ran toward him
Fun fact the time it took that grizzly to charge 60 meters (by his own admission) at MAXIMUM recorded grizzly speed is 4 seconds.
>No effect!.jpg
>The bear ran right through the cloud and spray and pushed him down and savaged him as best it could, slashing up his back, biting and breaking an arm and tossing him around like a toy while Todd tried his best to stay facedown covering his neck and vitals
>the bear eventually gets bored and leaves and Todd Orr starts walking back to his car several miles away
this is where it gets even more fucked
>A few minutes later Todd Orr notices he is being stalked by the same bear, or another new bear, he does not know.
>Thinking quickly he chooses bear spray again, only to have almost an exact repeat of what happened.
>After a broken arm, several more bite wounds and his scalp so badly torn his hat is literally holding his skin together he makes his way back to civilization, and on the way notices he has lost his revolver sometime during the ordeal.

Afterwards he says he wouldnt have used his revolver since it had cubs and he is a gigantic faggot.

Bear spray 0/2, Carry a gun of adequate caliber and practice with it if your going into bear country. In the time it took for that grizzly to charge him he easily could have fired the entire capacity of a shotgun, handgun, or semi automatic rifle.

When Im in the bush I carry a 9mm regardless, if im around grizzlies i carry either a large bore rifle, or a shotgun with magnum slugs.

>>1022524
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK609rbSBLs

>>1022217
see
>>1022524
No serious injuries my white asshole.

>>1022162
For bears, .45acp no, .357 is a hard maybe depending on the load and bullet type, 10mm or .44mag are better, but really, you should have a rifle if you know bears are about.

Cougars are much smaller, so take from that what you will.

>>1022146
You mean *70% as effective as guns. Guns are still a lot more reliable.

>>1022152
>your only means of defense against bears doesn't work when it's windy
>bears are found in the mountains
>it's frequently windy in the mountains
Hmm!

>>1021984
A side-by-side 12 gauge shotgun like the century arms coach is pretty damn inexpensive. Two buckshot loads is pretty much all you'd need to drop anything, plus the shorter barrel will make it easier to draw from the back, and you can get off your follow-up shots much faster with a double barrel than a pump.

>>1022155
According to bear mace proponents, "a little whiff" is supposed to be enough. Do you think that a gun would be as ineffective? Or would it be much more effective?

>>1022530
Or when its cold, the aerosol will not expand effectively. Or when its raining. Or if you let it sit past a period of time. Or if you shoot it too early in your panic. Or if you shoot it too late in your panic. Or maybe the stars align and literally everything happens just right, and the bear just ignores it. Just like >>1022524 >>1022526

>>1022533
see
>>1022524
retard. Bears arent people, they are vicious animal when they want to be. What makes you cry and shut down completely might have literally no effect.

>>1022524
Nice story, but he lived and could walk out of there.

According to statistics, there's a good chance had he used his gun, he'd have been dead.

One single story does not justify your use of guns.

Hundreds of bear encounters show that spray is more effective.

It's like not wearing a seat belt because you heard one time a guy got into a horrible accident but was unbelted flew out of the window unharmed and landed on a couch alongside the road.

Yes, there will be times not wearing a seat belt would cause less injury. For every 1 of those stories, there's 1000 stories about seat belts saving lives.

>>1022527
He was able to walk, talk, and make a video in his phone.

I've been a paramedic for 10 years. Trust me, that guy wasn't seriously hurt. It looks bad, but he was hardly near death.

>>1022217
Maturity is understanding that this is an epidemiological study, not a study about the effectiveness of different weapons. It's the same as those studies which conclude that "having a gun in the house is associated with a 200% greater risk of being a victim of gun violence." It's not really saying anything to say that people with guns were sometimes not able to defend an attacking bear. A person with just bear mace will NEVER be able to deter a bear in a strong cross-wind or headwind. That's a verifiable fact about how aerosols work. You're free to go test it out for yourself. Funny thing, when it comes be to deterring a bear, bullets don't become totally ineffective in bad weather.

>>1021984

Common sense and Glock 20 with 15+1 of 220gr hard cast.

>>1022527
>>1022540
>>1022541
Where is your empathy? Are you so disconnected from reality that you're totally unable to imagine yourself in his situation or are you actually masochists who would have enjoyed getting savaged by a giant predator?

>>1022529
You are misguided. Research says otherwise.

I can tell there are a lot of dumbd republicans in this thread.

When confronted with actual research and facts, they get all pissed and provide illogical uneducated ramblings about what they believe, despite what they believe being unequivocally being proven false.

Hey conservatards.... read this.

https://www.outsideonline.com/1899301/shoot-or-spray-best-way-stop-charging-bear

And before you get all "m-m-muh guns i could k-k-k-ill a charging beaaarrrr".... I'm an avid gun owner, but you idiots are making real republicans look like idiots.

>>1022542
It doesnt matter if bullets become less effective, becsuse they are already proven just as effective as doing nothing. What about that don't you get?

The research doesn't lie. You're just wrong. Bear spray is more effective in every scenario, because even if it DOESN'T WORK AT ALL, it's EXACTLY the same effectiveness as a firearm.

On top of that, you're still 50% more likely to be injured by the bear if you do use a gun.

>>1022540
Except bear spray failed and todd orr knew what to do if it failed because it does fail at a consistent rate. Likening me wamting to trust ok my own abilities and the mechanical dependability off a firearm to not wearing a seatbelt because of anecdotal evidence literally the opposite of the truth.

I posted empirical data in which bear spray failed not once but twice in ideal conditions when used by a knowledgeable user and all you can say is 'it wasent that bad, your just scared".

Fucking seriously.

>>1022547
I already addressed this. There are many kinds off research. See:
>>1022542

If you have to name-call in order to connect your cited research to the claim you want to make, that's usually a sign that there is a disconnect between yourself and your ability to be intellectually honest.

>>1022551
But the study is about different

The study researched different weapons, the conditions used, across different environments, and even found a difference between long guns and hand guns.

The study just found guns, regardless of type, caliber, or use, just don't stop bears consistently.

Bear spray works until it doesn't

>A lone female grizzly bear reportedly surprised a man hunting elk at Big Creek north of Gardiner on Oct. 28. The hunter reported to Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks that he came upon the bear feeding on a carcass in the brush and that the bear charged him. The hunter said he first used bear spray to deter the attack then shot the bear in self-defense.

>The second incident was reported on Oct. 31 by a group of elk hunters who said they came upon and surprised a female grizzly bear with two young bears at Johnson Lake near West Yellowstone. The hunters said they first used bear spray on the charging bear, but, as the bear continued to approach, they reportedly shot the bear in self-defense.

Ideally you have multiple people in your group that will have lethal support at the ready.

>>1022556

Forgot link

http://mtstandard.com/news/local/hunters-kill-two-grizzlies-in-southwest-montana/article_1b658f7a-a89b-5b26-88b4-33e32310e39c.html

>>1022555
Your evidence is obviously biased you idiot as proven by the fact that many types of bears were hunted close to extinction, guns are incredibly effective, in fact they are the most effective device ever crafted by man to defend oneself against any manner of beast. The fact that bear spray has a consistent failure rate regardless of circumstance (but circumstances can mage it much higher) doesnt make any sense at all.

>>1022550
The problem here is twofold. First, you are misrepresenting the claims made by the study and if you are not doing it intentionally, then the bigger problem seems to be that you don't understand the claims made by that study.

The study didn't prove which weapon is most effective at stopping a bear, since they didn't test that - and if you think they did, then where is the data showing stopping tests of charging bearable where the only variable being changed was the weapon? That kind of data is JUST NOT THERE. All they looked at was which weapons were used in different real life encounters. The troubling thing is that you don't seem to appreciate the breadth of uncontrolled variables across these different encounters. Do you think that the people who bring guns are the same kind of people as those who rely on bear mace? I'm honestly curious how you could even read a thread like this and say that they are. Guess what? There's an uncontrolled variable right there.

>>1022555
>>1022564

>>1022564
See>>1022563
Also *The fact that bear spray has a consistent failure rate regardless of circumstance (but circumstances can mage it much higher) and you keep saying its somehow more effective doesnt make any sense at all.*

My bad phoneposting and got distracted.

>>1022564
>>1022566
just ignore that retard, he's just trying to piss off everyone else with shitty bait

>>1022568
>>1022534
You don't appear to be using the quote function correctly.

>>1022573
In the first post you put i was correcting my bad phonepost.

>>1021984
only retarded people get bear spray. A black bear will run away if you yell at it and pepperspray onlyake a grizzly pissed.

>>1022575
Accurate post is accurrate.

>>1022576
The bearspray shill is the retard, I wasn't trying to claim anything else besides this

>>1022575
>t. bear scarer

>>1022043
Kill one with your bare hands then I'll be impressed. Otherwise you're just a loser

File: rp6.jpg (42KB, 341x445px)

42KB, 341x445px

>>1022661
>Bare hands
Mfw

File: 1491195795056-k.png (336KB, 415x355px)

336KB, 415x355px

>>1022113

>bear mace
>guns

Grenade launchers are 100% effective at deterring bears when used correctly

.45-70 gov. guide rifle. will kill anything in front of it.

t. a /k/omrade who has seen this burr Killin discussion a billion times over

File: catto2.png (12KB, 381x373px)

12KB, 381x373px

i dont give a shit what some nerd in college says

rather have a gun than can of spray salt

>>1022778
>spray salt
wat

Guns are just as effective as doing nothing. Hundreds of bear encounters have proven this beyond a reasonable doubt. It's only an argument if you haven't read the research.

Even if bear spray fails, it's still exactly the same effectiveness as a gun, about 80% effective.

However, even in windy conditions, it works well. People forget it's in a pressurized can. Even with strong gusts, the spray is coming out much, much faster than any wind is blowing, and covers a wide area.

Ask an expert in the field about it. You might be surprised.

I understand WHY you think guns would work, since they SEEM like you should jist be able to point, click, and kill a bear.... the problem is that it just isn't reliable enough. You basically have to be lucky to kill a charging bear by taking out it's CNS. When a bear is charging, that means hitting a 5inch area that's bouncing up and down moving at 30moh towards you. Even expert marksmen will find this hard.

I love guns, I have dozens of them, I've hunted my whole life, I've bear hunted for several years. I'm still bringing bear spray because according to every research article, it's more effecrive.

>>1022083
>Illegals get killed by cougars around the border all the time
Wear a MAGA hat, the cougar will know you are friendly and give you safe passage.

>>1022823
>I'm still bringing bear spray because according to every research article, it's more effecrive.

That's the logical, sensible, and responsible thing to do.

>>1022823
>>1022843
Your making a lot of generalizations that just arent true, even aside from your so called "research articles" that dont account the difference between actual defensive scenarios and times when someone used bear spray when there was no threat and the bear was just passing by, or the fact that many times when a gun is used for self defense effectively it isnt reported and only is reported when something goes wrong, diluting the samples in each direction and nullifying the study.

>>1022857
Going off of that bias in your "studies" your claim that using a firearm as your first line of defense being as good as nothing dosent make any sense, firearms are the culmination of however many thousand years of human technological advancement but you say they are outclassed by a spray that dosent work in the cold, the rain, windy conditions or if its not used before an experation date. Your whole argument is fraught with biases.

>>1022857
By your logic as well, there would be equally as many times bear spray is used and not reported. There would also be times when someone fires a "warning shot" and reports it as being effective.

The variables you are thinking about, were taken into account in the research done.

>>1022875
I have no bias. I read several large research studies that all have the same conclusion. You are much more likely to survive a bear encounter by using bear spray .

You are however biased. You are defending a point that has been proven wrong.

Yes, guns are the culmination of human weaponry. They are used all the time to kill bears.

But... when used on an aggressive bear, they just aren't reliable. You have to hit a baseball sized target moving at 30mph. If you don't hit that exactly, you chances of serious injury go up. A bluff charging bear that's struck by a bullet, now becomes a bear that is literally fighting to the death. You forget that a bear that's not killed instantly, becomes a bear that will attempt to kill whatever is near it.

I've bear hunted for 5 seasons. I haven't yet shit a bear, but 3 of my hunting partners have. Even smaller bears, with large caliber guns, rarely just drop dead instantly.

Also, guns are great to kill a bear, but you only shoot a bear broadside to take out it's vital organs. You'd never shoot a bear that's facing you.... exactly the position they are in if they are agressive.

>>1022957
What large research studies? Ive read the same ones and they almost always are flawed in serious ways and only look at reported instances or nit picking data and are usually funded or run by antigun groups or directly run by the manufacturer of various kinds of bear spray, which is the definition of bias so i cant take any of them at face value.

To do so would be like looking at the high frequency of churches and liquor stores in the same area and concluding that christians are alcoholics. Or seeing that the most densely populated democratic voting districts have unusually high rates of crime, drug use and homelessness. Just because you can cherry pick data to draw those conclusions dosent mean they are true, there are more churches and liqour stores in poor areas and majority black poor areas generally vote democrat.

Aside from faulty studies using a firearm to defend against a bear does require an amount of skill and familiarity but no more than you should have if you commit to carrying a firerm for personal defense.

In the case with todd orr it is entirely within the realm or possibility that he couldve gotten more shots off than was needed and even could have reloaded to fire more if he was proficient in his weapon. That is including draw time and time to aim, since even traveling at the maximum speed recorded for a bear it wouldve taken more than 4 seconds to reach him.

Even with a large bore revolver and only put half his rounds on target i have no worries he wouldve been able to stop that bear through either a headshot or a heart lung shot while it was charging. I know this because i have done it myself with a 12 gauge shotgun using slugs in british columbia.

>>1022957
Who the hell would self report scaring an animal off with a gunshot? What officer would actually write that report? And im sure if your hunting buddies were being charged by a bear theyd drop their guns and go for bear spray. Really now.

>>1022987
The studies in referencing are listed in this thread.

They are not "not picking" and not notnfunded by "antigun" groups.

The one study looked at every single reported aggressive bear encounter in the state of Alaska over more than 100 years. It was done by Brigham young university.

You can't just dismantle science because you have a preference for guns.

Of course studies only look at reported instances.... how else could anyone study something.... You think theres a way to study unreported instances? Regardless, ANY death, or serious injury would be reported, and we know people who use guns are more likely to be injured than those who don't.

These are facts. You can not dispute then by trying to discredit the arguement. The results are true whether or not you choose to accept them.

>>1023035
And by the way... the main study I listed was commissioned by the Republican run government of Alaska, in order to find the most effective method of being safe in bear country.

The results surprised even the pro-gun researcher.

A 1990s U.S. Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team analysis determined that people who defended themselves with guns suffered a 50% injury rate, but with bear spray avoided injury most of the time.[4][5]

A 2008 "Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska" study stated:

"Red pepper spray stopped bears’ undesirable behavior 92% of the time when used on brown bears, 90% for black bears, and 100% for polar bears.
Of all persons carrying sprays, 98% were uninjured by bears in close-range encounters.
All bear-inflicted injuries (n = 3) associated with defensive spraying involved brown bears and were relatively minor (i.e., no hospitalization required).
In 7% (5 of 71) of bear spray incidents, wind was reported to have interfered with spray accuracy, although it reached the bear in all cases.
In 14% (10 of 71) of bear spray incidents, users reported the spray having had negative side effects upon themselves, ranging from minor irritation (11%, 8 of 71) to near incapacitation (3%, 2 of 71).
Bear spray represents an effective alternative to lethal force and should be considered as an option for personal safety for those recreating and working in bear country."

>>1023035
First off in the study you keep touting as the best ever they go as far back as 1884 with self defense cases, a time when most people had black powder muskets and forensically saying "this guy died because he used a gun against a bear" was like saying "this man died because of demons" you could say anything and people didnt know any better, im sure ill find more when i get into it but im at work. To be continued.

>>1023045
you will never convince the guntards of this. they just jerk off to the though of shooting anything that looks at them. so effectiveness or practicality or even morals and compassion is not in the game. their sexual arousal comes from the thought of killing stuff needlessly.

my problem with gunfags is 99% of people can't tell if a bear is attacking or bluff charging they can't read bears at all most of them can't even read dogs. that's why non-lethal should be priority. because people are fucking morons.

that said, i'm a firm believer of covering all angles. when you go in a group give everyone a can of bear spray and bring a gun just in case. if the 6 can of bear spray would turn out to be useless by some miracle slug it!

>>1022162

The general rule I have for myself is if it's over 100lbs, time for a long gun. The smallest round i'd feel safe with is *maybe* .357, but I'd advise 44 mag. I always keep a handgun with me in a holster whenever i'm about however. Not sure about your state's laws about that, but better to be judged by 12 than never heard from again, you know? But that's just me.

>>1022823
>Even if bear spray fails, it's still exactly the same effectiveness as a gun, about 80% effective.

What?

>>1023056
Well fucking of course a civil war musket wouldnt be a good choice for a bear, what bullshit.

>>1022687
kek

>>1022823
>>1022957
>>1023035
>>1023037
>>1023045
I already addressed the flaw with using this research to make these claims earlier in the thread. The studies are not making the kinds of claims you think they are, and you keep misrepresenting them.

It is NOT THE SAME study to just look at the type of weapon used and the outcomes of a wide variety of bear encounters as it is to actually study the efficacy of different weapons at deterring bears - and if you think it is, then I challenge you to list all of the assumptions being made when you use those studies to conclude that "bear spray has the same efficacy as guns." I don't believe you will be able to.

Despite the fact that the title of a study uses the word "efficacy," you need to read and understand what is actually being claimed. There are no claims anywhere about the "inherent efficacy" of a gun or of bear spray at stopping "a bear." Epidemiological studies like this are purely a way to survey medical injuries. What is shown is the reported prevalence and efficacy of gun use or of bear spray use, in a wide variety of bear encounters, by the kinds of people who go into the outdoors, where there are bears, with each kind of weapon, respectively. ONCE AGAIN, like I already said, if these studies actually showed the efficacy of different kinds of weapons, then the methodology would be totally different. The researchers would have had to set up experiments where the ONLY variable being manipulated was the weapon type, and AGAIN, that's NOT what was done in these studies.

The reason someone accused you of using "anti-gun" research is because you're misrepresenting data in the same transparently dishonest way that anti-gun activists have done in the past. What do you think is proven by studies showing that a person is 200% more likely to be the victim of gun violence if they keep a gun in their home? Which is the cause and which is the effect? Hint: those studies don't make any conclusions about cause or effect.

>>1023112 continued:
Now, I'm not a professional forester or weapons researcher, but already in listening to you go on and on about these studies, my bullshit detector is blaring at ear-bleeding levels because of the above mentioned logical leaps you have taken. Here are a few questions I'd ask you, just as a way to get you thinking how you ought to be thinking (like a scientist).

Based on this thread alone, do you think that you can make any generalizations about people who favor bear spray or people who favor guns? Do you think that there are going to be any differences about the ways that they use the outdoors, or would you expect them to have differing levels of awareness about being in the forest, resulting in more or less confidence in venturing into bear country? Would one group ever be expected to act more boldly in the fact of danger than the other? Which group would be more likely to practice avoidance and greater situational awareness? Would their campsites look the same, or could you generalize any differences?

And finally, do you really think that, under ideal conditions, the effect of a bear shot in the face with bear spray would be the same as a bear shot in the face with a gun??? No one is saying that idealness of conditions isn't a factor for either weapon, but you can't seriously think that the effects are really the same, regardless of weapon type???

>>1023112
>>1023115
Thank you for actually reading the study and realizng that before i got to it, and even all that aside out of 400+situations described on the study, those range from (like i said earlier) 1884 until 2012 and the author specifically states the type of firearm is ignored in this study because that is not the point of it, so the difference between a civil war era musket to a modern rifle is almost literally orders of magnitude in terms of accuracy, projectile speed, rate of fire and the actual projectile used,as well as the physical and behavioural differences between bears over the past 140 years. The study he keeps on referencing means nothing or at least nothing in terms of this thread and certainly not the claims he is making.

You can't just misrepresent someone elses study because you have a dont like guns.

>>1022661
http://metro.co.uk/2013/05/27/shepherd-kills-brown-bear-with-his-bare-hands-after-squeezing-its-throat-3810110/

I'm with you.

>>1023134
Firearm type is a big factor (the anon earlier in this thread who says his wilderness defense weapon is a 9mm is a goner), but I really think that it goes beyond that to type of person. And I'm not saying that "PETA hippies" or whatever are the only ones to carry bear spray either. I think it's as simple as the type of weapon you are stuck with, for whatever reason, when you're out in the woods has a major influence on your decision-making.

For example, if all you've got to fend off the attack of a 2000 pound predator is a can of aerosolized hot sauce, you're probably going to be A LOT more cautious than someone who has his trusted .44 magnum on his hip. That caution probably even extends to the types of trips you plan. Instead of a solo trip in Alaskan salmon country, you'll probably go with a group of people, or you may avoid grizzly country altogether. All these are factors that the cited study does not take into account.

On the other hand, a big bore revolver can easily give someone more confidence than he ought to have, even to the point of thinking that he's mastered its use, only to miss his target under stress and perhaps get mauled while reloading. Some of the most popular big bore revolvers for wilderness defense happen to also be the hardest to shoot, such as a the S&W 329PD and Ruger SRH Alaskan. Or maybe the fact that someone has a big gun gave him the confidence to bring his uninitiated wife on the trip, and when a bear shows up, the wife freaks out, causing the bear's chase instinct to kick in and to attack her, whereas the bear spray user would have no such confidence, having been extra cautious since the planning stages of the trip to either exclude people likely to end up as bear meat, or at least to educate them how to act around bears.

The result is that, yes, people die fending off bears with guns and with bear spray, but for different enough reasons that significant academic caution should be exercised when making comparisons.

>>1023112
I like this reasoning. This is true.

>>1023112
i want ta study showing the effectiveness of a roman shield formation against a bear. until i have it you can't be possibly right.

>>1023181
No, *until you have that, I can't possible make claims about the efficacy of different types of battle formations against bears.

Which I won't.

>>1023185
btw i get what you are saying about studies if you take the time you can dismantle most of them and show how utterly biased they are.

like the africa study done on blacks by jews where they circumcises half the group and the healing period was actually in the study period in fact took up like 80% of it. which means the chance for the cuts to get aids was somewhat lessened to say the least they also got free condoms and shit at the clinic. and then they didn't do any follow ups later.

yet who managed to give a "maybe" about circumcision preventing hiv based on that awfully flawed study. and to this day you can find this on their home page.

Bears are great. Nothing better than getting out of your tent in the morning and watching the bears on the slopes above you feeding on berries. It's my favorite /out/ thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=079s2CwGn0Q
i have only one question:
why the fuck they are not making hiking clothes from this stuff?

>>1023202
Because a kevlar sack can only protect against tearing of the sack itself, not from the contents being crushed.
http://www.natgeotv.com/uk/casey-and-brutus-grizzly-encounters/facts
>A grizzly’s mouth gape measure around 30 centimetres and holds four 5 centimetre canines.
>Grizzly bears have a bite-force of over 8,000,000 pascals, enough to crush a bowling ball.

>>1023206
that's not even greater than the record human biteforce btw. 1200psi measured on some innuit dude. it's way bigger than the average citydwellers sure. but it's not that crazy.

>>1023215
btw i have a solution for that problem make the jacket and pants like self inflating vests with air pockets. so the dude becomes an untouchable balloon and the bear can't pierce the fabric.

Not intending to inflame this already retarded thread any further, but no one has pointed out yet that bear spray has a ridiculously short range.

I work up in the boonies in Canada and had to go through training on how to use the stuff due to myriad overbearing safety laws and not legally being allowed to carry a firearm where I work. It might shoot accurately for about 3 meters (10 feet), maybe 5 meters (15ish feet) if you're lucky.

We consider it our last-ditch line of defense after the almost-always effective methods of:
1. Bears seeing us and running the hell away
2. Being super noisy if bears don't immediately run away
3. Setting off a firecracker if they start getting close after trying step 2

I've been doing this stuff for 7 years, run into bears at least a couple hundred times, and never had to go past step 2.

>>1023215
>human bite force is greater than grizzly bear bite force

100% certified bullshit.

>>1022113
Yeah, really. If people knew half of the crap that went on around the border, they'd ape out. The really high traffic border zones can potentially have hundreds of people coming over in a night. Sometimes the same groups multiple times: they get caught, shipped back, Mexican authorities let them go, them come over again. Same night. The old, tired, etc. often lag behind in the back and sometimes are looted by the others, then kicked out and left for dead depending on how bad things are going. The cougars recognize something acting weak and afraid and go for it. But the humans are worse. Ever heard of The Rape Trees? The human traffickers will compete with each other for who rapes the most by hanging their victims underwear up on a bush or dead tree.

>>1023410
Nobody is forcing those people to break our immigration laws and cross the border illegally. If they don't want to get raped/eaten, maybe they shouldn't have become criminals.

>>1023379
humans have pretty much the most effective jaws in the animal kingdom i bet you didn't know that. it's like comparing gardening scissors to a hydraulic cutter.

>>1023076
Guns work to deter an aggressive bear 80% of the time.

Telling and waving your arms also works 80% of the time.

That means even an empty can of bear spray has an 80% effective rate if you tell while trying to use it.

>>1023112
You cleaely didnt even read the study because they do break it down into firearm types, and calibers. They found differences between long guns and hand guns even.

Wow you're dumb.

>>1023115
You're not thinking rationally.


You're saying a gun shot in a bears face is more effective than bear spray in the face.

Yes of course that's true. THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE.

You cannot reliably kill an aggressive bear. You are not accurate enough to hot a baseball sized brain moving at 30mph towards you with only 1-3 shots.

You. Can. Not. Do. It. Reliably.

Bear spray has a much, much ,much greater success rate.

Even under the worst conditions, bear spray has a greater chance of stopping a bear, than your chance of completely instantly disabling an attacking bear with a fire arm.

You are simply wrong, and grasping at straws to defend a point that you have absolutely no evidence to support.

Just because a gun can kill a bear does not mean it works every time.

No one is arguing a perfect shot from a gun is better than bear spray.

I am arguing that the chances of making that shot are slim at best.

A bear is charging you. The gun gives you an 80% chance of survival. The spray gives you a greater than 95% chance.

>>1023115
Also, the study I reference DOES breakdown the types of activities being done when the bear attacked, the level of awareness and bear preventative measures.

All the B.S. You're tying to use to discredit the studies have already been accounted for. The studies have been done by some of the leading experts on bears in the world. Of which, you are not.

>>1023154
Once again the cited does DOES take into account the size of the party involved, the type of hunting being done, the presence of food, the presence killed game, the reaction of people, the number of shots fired, the average distance when shots were fired, the average time of day, time of year, the caliber of weapon, the style of weapon, the age of the person involved, male or female, even the weather conditions.

You clearly did not read.

>>1023215
Yeah, no

>>1023656
>>1023655
>>1023654
>>1023651
>>1023647
Wow you just ignored most of what that anon said. That study isnt what your saying it is, and was never intended to be. Even if that was its purpose and did show what your saying which it dosent the sample size in terms of timeframe and the lack of specificty mean that the firearm classifications dont make sense. A civil war musket in 1884 is in the same category as a modern semi automatic rifle you idiot. That study has no value in terms of this discussion. And once again you can kill a charging bear, ive had to do it twice you faggot, and ive shown through really simple math todd orr had 4 (or more) seconds to do the same,which enough for the entire loading on his revolver and possibly another reload depending on skill level but is easily within an average persons capabilities if they are proficient enough to carry a gun safely.

>>1023379
>>1023696
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2010/06/22/who-are-you-calling-weak-human-jaws-are-surprisingly-strong-and-efficient/
1300 newtons is around 300 pound, now when you apply that on a fraction of a square inch (because let's face it the tip of teeth is way way smaller) it's not surprising that humans can put out psi values with bites that simple put the animal kingdom to shame.

>>1023647
"Guns work upwards or 80% of the tine when bears are attacking" is not comparable to " waving and yelling works 80% of the time when bears arent attacking." since they are two different situations a better statement is 80% kf the time a bear isnt a threat but in that 20% a firearm works upwards of 80% of the time to defend yourself depending mostly on personal experience with firearms."

Your not even trying to be analytical now you just being a faggot and lying about numbers so they are in your favor.

>>1023724
(Continued)
Using your weird logic i could say that bear spray and yelling have to same effectiveness rate on bears that werent gonna attack in the first place. But i wont since thats probably wrong due to shitty logic, but you would apparently.

>>1023717
Found the liar.

>>1023763
What was it what i said that was a lie?

>>1023724
Once again, you're wrong.

The studies look at a bear being aggressive, and a threat.

The studies equally compare guns and spray. It DOES NOT only compare guns being used during an attack, to spray being used not during an attack like you suggest.

You're literally making up the dumbest arguments possible, there's no way you're not jist trolling.

The studies compare every variable that can be accounted for.

You're just simply ignorant.

>>1023765
How does the study know if the bears aggressive or not? If they are attacking? Relying on eyewitness testimony the least reliable of all forms of evidence? Theres no way to tell if it wouldve attacked or not,unless it did which is what i was saying. Thats why it means nothing, it has no value in this discussion in the scope of the study, the intent of it, the methodology used and the assumption that every bear case used in the study would've attacked.

>>1023765
You cant claim a study is more than the sum of its parts, if even one method is wrong or flawed that affects all the other data and from the very beginning they classify a single shot civil war era musket in the same class as an semi automatic large bore rifle with more than 30 shot capacity. From there many other methods are equally flawed. You havent addressed any of this. And thats even if the study was meant for this argument which it wasent, thats why its methodology is so fucky.

>>1021984
They are pretty rare around where I live(north/central Alabama) so I don't carry bear spray but I normally have a gun with me.

>>1023765
>only compare guns being used during an attack, to spray being used not during an attack like you suggest.
He never suggested that though.

>>1023807
See
>>1023779
There's no way too distinguish between the two unless a bear actually attacked and as he said, when guns are used bears attack 100% of the time. Anything else os just speculation.

>>1023724
so guns work and are warranted in 16% of the time but only also prevent injury in 4% of bear encounters?
that's pretty god damn bad anon. compared to bear spray working in 98% of the encounters where it was used.

>>1023829
No? I dont even know how you got those, but i was making a point that anon didnt know how to read data, and was willfully twisting it to make his point yhe same way you are now. The same data that was wrong and didnt even apply in the first place since the study is invalid.

>>1023809
>when guns are used bears attack 100% of the time.
He didn't say that. Where are you getting this?

>>1023829
You don't seem to understand percentages.

>>1023842
you said 80% of the time gun was used the bear was not even attacking so 20% of the time was then 80% of the time the gun worked (saving life, but i remember that injuries are pretty common like 60% or higher) so that's about what it boils down to: only 4-6% of the cases the gun was warranted to use and worked out without a hitch saving from death and any harm.

>>1023845
you don't seem to understand elementary math.

>>1023844
Earlier in the thread in he made the argument that many people use give when they aren't needed and turn a otherwise benign bear into an as angry one and were hurt because of it. Right here>>1022217

>>1023847
Yeah that was me illustrating how shittily he was interpreting his false data and then i gave a few examples how you could interprete the same false data differently.

But none if that matters since all the numvers come from a source that is poorly researched, organized and dosent apply.

>>1023848
My dude, if you want to compare the percentage of encounters in which an aggressive bear does not attack when the person is armed with a firearm to the percentage of encounters in which an aggressive bear does not attack when the person is armed with bear spray, then your have to include the cases in which use of a firearm may not have been warranted, since you're including the cases in which use of bear spray may not have been warranted.

This means for firearms, 96% of cases end with the bear not causing injury (based on the numbers you were using in the above post).
0.8+(0.2*0.8)=0.96=96%

>>1023860
*and thats if those numbers are anywhere close to real since the study that supplied them was flawed in almost every method it used.*

>>1023864
True.

>>1023860
nah 0.8*0.2 for successful defense with gun and 0.8*0.2*0.6 for no injury doing so. you are adding 0.8 for no reason whatsoever. it was when the bear would not have attacked but a gun was used which resulted in an attack in a few cases btw.

i would put it more to 90% of bear encounters when the bear has no intention of starting shit just bluff charging or checking you out btw.

>>1023784
The study concluded the type of firearm carried no weight in the outcome.

That's for more than 100 years of attacks.
The vast majority being recent. Having older data and older firearms is irrelevant because the constitute a very small minority of the study. Couple that with the fact that the majority of gun vs bear encounters only 1 shot is fired.

ALSO, a study done from 1980 to present found nearly the exact same results.

But I'm sure you'll argue that point as well, since 1980 guns are different or some bullshit.

When you use a gun against a bear, your chance of injury goes up. It is fact.

>>1023877
add to this that standing your ground and not doing anything works out with no injuries 70% of the time... guns actually make it worse by some.

>>1022217
Read this pic carefully.

Your risk of injury double when a gun is used vs bear spray.

The US Fish and wildlife service concluded this looking only at recent data, no muskets, no other factors contributing... bear spray was found to be more effective.

But, alas, it's lost on you. Like people who believe the earth is flat, or that 9/11 was an inside job... no matter how many facts, studies, and science you present, they can never ever ever see the truth. You believe guns kill things therefore you believe guns can always kill things and killing something is the best way to prevent being killed. It honestly sounds solid, it really does. It makes sense....

However, it just doesn't hold up. Hundreds of encounters with bears show this. There are dozens of factors that contribute to the failure on guns vs bears.... bear spray however has a greater chance of saving your life. The goal is to get a bear to stop its behavior. Guns jist don't work as well as spray.

Again... I completely see why you think guns SHOULD be better. They really should. When you add all the factors in though, across all scenarios, bear spray has a higher success rate, and guns have a comparatively low success rate.

>>1023877
>you are adding 0.8 for no reason whatsoever.
It seems like you didn't read my explanation regarding why that 80% also must be included in the total for successful avoidance of attacks.

>>1023896
you can't say guns saved you from attack if there was no attack. that's moronic.

>>1023897
The cases where there was no attack are included in the bear spray stats though, you stupid head. This isn't a discussion of bear attacks, it's about avoiding being killed by "aggressive" bears, including ones which aren't attacking.

>>1023594
>>1023720
Humans and bears do not have the same ability to bite through things.

>>1023903
and how many times using bear spray provoked an attack?
>>1023913
i don't know could a bear chew off your face faster or a human on bath salts?

>>1023651
>>1023654
>>1023655
>>1023656
>>1023765
>>1023882
>>1023885

Here we go again...

Listen, friend. I already went over this in great detail with two other anons earlier in the thread. I explained in a very respectful way that epidemiological studies have limitations and can't be used to prove anything more than they were designed to make claims about. I'd appreciate it if you responded to what I actually said, instead of just repeating the same disproven talking points, which I personally find to be very rude. I'm happy to have a conversation with you about test design, but no one likes the feeling that they are talking to a wall. OK?

>>1023915
>and how many times using bear spray provoked an attack?

https://youtu.be/wsNHeSoABYQ

>>1021987
kek

>>1022007
Oh god this is hilarious

>>1023915
>and how many times using bear spray provoked an attack?
Nice job changing the subject to avoid having to try to rebut my point.

>>1023915
>chew off your face faster or a human on bath salts?
WHAT.

>>1023918
This. He keeps ignoring you since thats all he can do. And keep parroting " look i know guns should be effective but they just arent mmmmkay?"

Seriously.

>>1023918
So basically, despite several researchers who happen to be experts on bear behavior saying bear spray is better. The US Fish and wildlife service saying spray is better, and the government of Alaska saying near spray is better, with several studies all concluding that bear spray is better, and no research at all co concluding guns are better....

You still choose to say "the studies are flawed" and think guns are better?

>>1023936
no i'm just curious about how many times guns provoked an attack and how many times did pepper spray. if nothing else that should give you a clue which one is better.

>>1023944
it's his right to not believe them, but the reality is this: >>1023064

>>1023945
One study referenced found no instances where bear spray provoked an attack, with testing done on live and captive animals.


http://www.themeateater.com/2016/the-cold-hard-facts-of-bear-deterrents-bear-spray-vs-firearms/

That study is referenced in this article.

File: Scared_bear.gif (2MB, 373x248px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 373x248px

>>1023949
btw if you want a bear to fugg off faster than ushian bolt with cybernetic enhancement and a pound of cocain just make cat noises!

make sounds like a bobcat spawned in hell. bear will be like:

>>1023944
>So basically
The "so" tell for sophistry. This should be good.
>despite several researchers who happen to be experts
Appeal to authority fallacy. Not an argument.
>The US Fish and wildlife service.government of Alaska/"several studies" saying spray is better
Appeal to authority fallacy. Not an argument. Also a misrepresentation of the conclusions of these studies, which didn't set out to prove which deterrent is "better," but rather they studied the rates of success of each kind of deterrent, which is a completely different claim. If you don't understand why it's different, then I can only think that you didn't read any of my posts earlier in the thread, since I explicated this in great detail.

>You still choose to say "the studies are flawed" and think guns are better?
Strawman fallacy. Not an argument.

I really don't know what to say to you, bro. You are not responding to what I wrote, like I would expect someone interested in a mutually beneficial conversation to do. You're not giving me anything to reply to besides logical fallacies, so I am having trouble taking you seriously. I have a lot of patience and can only repeat that I'm happy to have a cordial conversation with you, but it's not a good feeling when you make it seem like I'm talking to a wall. Are you able to empathize with that sentiment?

>>1023953
No, you're literally like talking to an autistic child.

Whatever bullshit you're arguing is idiotic.

We are talking about what is more effective at detering bears. Spray or guns.

All of the available evidence suggests strongly that bear spray is more effective.

There is no evidence otherwise.

Whatever you're trying to prove about fallacy and flaws in study or whatever are jist to distract from the fact that your position is inherently wrong.

Bear spray is better than guns.

No one is arguing about anything else, so just seriously stfu about your moronic ramblings.

ALSO "authority fallacy" only holds true if it's to sway opinion based on fallacy you fucking moron. Such as misrepresenting what an "expert" is. Authority fallacy would be true if i said "Dr. Bob Green says bear spray is more effective" and turns out dr. Bob was an English professor. When I'm citing actual experts on bear behavior, authority fallacy has no merit whatsoever. It's called appeal to authority, not appeal to authority fallacy, and is absolutely an effective, ethical, and viable way to sway opinion.

>>1023953
seriously anon just stop, ur starting to look pathetic.

>>1023958
We get it dude. He doesn't. Just stop

>>1023953
Ignore this guy

>>1023958
>>1023959
He is obviously shilling, and incapable of either having a discussion with you or answering any of your questions. That is why he is insistent on having the final post showing the points he is pushing on the front page.

Anyone who actually reads this thread will see that he is not having an open discussion and making claims that are not supported by the data he references.

>>1023962
>>1023959
>>1023958
Seriously? Really? Once again he points out your"evidence" dosent male sense and all you can say "lol whata gun shill" he has had the least to say in favor of guns, openly admitting he dosent know but the most to say to prove all the evidence you put out has no value for this argument and what it does say is completely different from what your claiming. Get your shit together man. Your sources are invalid.

>>1023975
The last post was me, and I was trying to say the guy making the claim that

>>1023958
>Bear spray is better than guns.

is not backed up by the sources he posts and he is pushing

>>1023953
>a misrepresentation of the conclusions of these studies, which didn't set out to prove which deterrent is "better," but rather they studied the rates of success of each kind of deterrent, which is a completely different claim.

>>1023990
Actually, taking all sources into consideration, all the evidence does in fact support the claim that bear spray is more effective than guns.

>>1023998
Wrong, and even if it did, its not applicable anyway.

>>1023958
Wasent it you who said earlier and i quote
>you can't just dismantle science because you have a preference for guns.
Right here
>>1023035
Well you can't just disregard a scientific argument because you dont like it.

>>1024005

The studies show guns repel an aggressive bear approx 80% of the time (slightly less when a long gun is used)

Bear spray was shown to repel an aggressive bear 90% and 93% of the time (multiple studies).

The same studies show no serious injuries from 1983-2006 when using bear spray against an aggressive bear. With several deaths being recorded in the same time period when using a gun vs an aggressive bear.

I'm not really sure how this isn't showing bear spray is more effective at detering an aggressive bear.

When you put everything together, with many studies, over large areas, with lots of different bears, people, and conditions, I'm not sure how you can conclude anything except that bear spray is more effective.

Rather than continue to try and discredit my argument, make your own argument, using multiple cited sources, that bear spray is not as effective.

>>1024015
See>>1023918
Those numbers are innaccurate and the study itself dosent apply because of the way it was made

>>1024015
>multiple cited sources
Dude, you only listed one and its not even what your saying it is.

>>1022024
Wrong.

>The 750,000 black bears of North America kill less than one person per year on the average, while 1 out of each 16,000 people commits murder each year across North America. Most attacks by black bears attacks are defensive reactions to a person who is very close, which is an easy situation to avoid.

>>1024056
how about black men? what the statistics say bout that?

>>1024058
>The North American negro comprises only 12.6% of the US population, yet it is responsible for upwards of 52% of homicides annually.

Huh.

File: 390BB3F700000578-3819015-image-a-31_1475469860917.jpg (62KB, 634x476px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 634x476px

Lets get down to debunking this stupid ass study you keep on touting as the end all be all. I mean, in the very first paragraph of the main body there’s a glaring problem,
>We compiled information on bear attacks from readily accessible
state and federal records, newspaper accounts, books, and anecdotal information that spanned the years 1883– 2009.

See "readily accessible" and the term "Anecdotal evidence", Wow I didnt know that anecdotes were scientific data, but lets go on.
The study accounts for a total of 43 variables, none of which show anything close to bear spray, and you keep saying "It accounts for the kind of firearms used" No, it dosent, it classifies them as longgun handgun, both, or unknown. Which over about 140 years means the accounting for firearms type is basically nil in practice since a civil war era musket is in the same category as a machine gun. A black powder single shot handgun is in the same category as a SW500. And Im not just saying this to make a point, there are cases described within the scope of that study, in Alaska hat may or may not be referenced that have used those guns. The study also dosent consider time or the year it occurred to be a variable, AT ALL.

So obviously some cherry-picking was used considering they even considered anecdotes in this study. In fact they say as much verbatim.
>"To overcome problems associated with missing or unclear information, we limited the contributions of each record"
>"The review process was subjective"
So they couldve just picked anything they want, but lets go on.

Continued

>>1023958
Wow. The mask really fell away quick there, didn't it? At least don't try to tell me that I didn't give you an opportunity to have a reasonable discussion. My patience is done with you. You won't receive any replies if you're going to name-call.

>>1023959
>seriously anon just stop, ur starting to look pathetic.
>>1023962
>Ignore this guy
These are not arguments. If you want to argue a point, I'm all ears. We've reached a point in the conversation, though, where the only person arguing the side of the story that you appear to stand on can only do it by ignoring my earlier criticisms and using logical fallacy. That is not how science works.

If we're going to have a reasonable discussion, then there needs to be a mutual understanding that it will be based around reason and evidence and a reciprocal dialogue. When one side ignores what the other side said, and continues to just repeat the same few statements over and over, it just leads to frustration on both sides of the debate. In this case, it has already led to name-calling and vitriol. That may be considered acceptable on some other message board (the spacing of his posts indicates reddit), but it's not going to persuade anybody on /out/.

>>1024056
Just because something is rare over the entire population doesn't mean precautions aren't needed for a specific segment of the population who put themselves into certain situations involving elevated risk. For example, being struck by lightning is very rare too, but when people climb mountains or fly-fish in above-treeline lakes frequently, they tend to put themselves at greater risk for being struck by lightning than your average office-worker in Cleveland. Going by statistics alone, you're much more likely to be attacked and killed by a dog than you are to be attacked by a bear, but do you think a dog owner and a non dog owner who avoids interacting with dogs share the exact same risk of dying in a dog attack?

>>1024065
>in city or woods, around blacks...

File: bear-attack-video.png (127KB, 288x315px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 288x315px

>>1024074
You keep saying that people will hurt themselves or are more at risk when using guns, but In the study the authors readily admit that in many of the incidents they did include, people just didnt use them in 21% of the cases. and in all of the cases considered, only in 1% of cases using the firearm caused the bear to be agitated and caused it to charge, and only 8% of all those cases they subjectively picked people used the gun incorrectly or “messed up under pressure”.

You keep saying that the study found that no difference in incidents where people used guns versus not using guns, but you cant draw that comparison since the sample size of the people using guns was THE ENTIRE STUDY of over 444 while the sample size of people not using guns was 40. The sample size of people not using them is less than the number of people who had bad experiences when facing down a bear and using them!!! In fact its about half. That’s amazing.
You also keep tossing around the number that 56% of people were injured in the study when using guns, that’s also literally the opposite of what the study say, only 23% of people were actually injured in the study, and only 12% were injured fatally.
> Bear-inflicted injuries occurred in 151 of 269 (56%) incidents. Of the 444 people involved in firearms incidents, 122 (28%) were injured, 15 (12%) were fatally injured.
Really makes you think.
At the end of the study, it actually says firearms were generally successful at stopping bears. But even they acknowledge this study shouldn’t be used as advice on bear defense on forums on the internet by huge faggots like you.
>Although firearms were successful (84% handgun; 76% long gun) in deterring aggressive bears in the records we studied, we do not claim that these rates represent the outcome for all bear–firearm incidents throughout Alaska or elsewhere.

File: maxresdefault (1).jpg (262KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 1280x720px

>>1024079
They also say straight up that their investigative efforts where restricted and if they tried harder, or had more data firearm success would’ve probably been even better.
>When we initiated this study in the late 1990s, we had access to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s defense of life or property (DLP) records. However, privacy laws restricted our access to records from 2001 to present… additional records would have likely improved firearm success rates from those reported here, but to what extent is unknown.
Heres some more nice quotes directly from the study that DIRECTLY refute all the bullshit you’ve been spewing.
>Although bear spray, pyrotechnics, noise makers, and other deterrents may alter a bear’s behavior, only a firearm provides a lethal force option… In some cases, this reluctance proved detrimental when split second decisions were required for the person to defend themselves from an aggressive, attacking bear.
>We did not have data regarding the level of expertise associated with those who carried firearms. Regardless, a person’s skill level plays an influential role in determining the outcome in bear– firearm incidents.
But don’t forget, this study means next to nothing, not only for all the reasons Ive listed here about their shoddy work and willingness to admit such, but because there is no comparison to bear spray. AT ALL.

>>1024080
>>1024079
>>1024074
Now Im almost absoultely certain that he isnt going to read this, or address any of these points, since theyve basically been brought up earlier in this thread, but if there was any doubt to anyone reading this but too lazy to read the study he keeps using to justify spouting antigun propaganda and the expense of logic, here you go.

>>1022007
I now want a patch/sticker of a bear eating a kayak that says "Please stop, bear"

>>1024080
that is fucking disgusting

would a handgun even stop such a vile beast?

>>1022532
*follow up shot

File: hound_chasing-bear.jpg (258KB, 800x326px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 800x326px

>>1021984
Bring a doggo with you.

>>1024090
A regular handgun? probably not, but he was carrying a big bore revolver that was made for hunting game in excess of 150 pounds, so he wouldve had a good chance had he chose it instead of bear spray

>>1024096
9mm hollow points wouldn't stop a bear?

File: blyat.jpg (29KB, 640x275px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 640x275px

Would pic related be a good innabearcountry rifle?

>>1024103
No scott, they probably wouldnt, but it depends on the bear and your shot placement.

>>1024103
Hollow points? On a bear? That is the opposite of what you want. Have you heard of under penetration?

>>1024103
They have been recorded as taking a hit to the heart and still making it 20 yards or so the hunter.

File: rodies.jpg (28KB, 468x386px)

28KB, 468x386px

>>1024108
Get a real mans gun

>>1023417
lets not turn this thread into that

keep your opinions/beliefs out of /out/

>>1024166
Quote the "opinion/belief" you think exists in my post.

File: inflatable-sumo-suit.jpg (109KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 768x1024px

>>1021984

>>1024166
Hes right though, and those are all facts. Calling you liberal scum, now thats a belief. Or it might be a fact too.

>>1024171
>>1024179
God damn it, all I meant was that whether or not they should stay out, or stay in. Or whether you liked or disliked them, contributed nothing to the thread. The only thing posts like the ones you are making do, is encourage talk that belongs elsewhere. I don't care about libshits or conservitards

>>1024193
but he didnt say whether he wanted them in or out, just that its their own fault if that happens. Since it other people just like them doing it.

>>1024195
I get that, but what in his post had anything to do with the thread. the only thing it could do is derail the thread. Like I am doing now, and now like what you are doing.

I should have never responded, I see my mistake I am done.

>>1024193
>, all I meant was that whether or not they should stay out, or stay in.

Why do you think anybody has a right to break laws? The default position is that people should follow laws.

>>1024198
Just like the default position is to favor your own life over a bears, and we're back on thread, carry whatever you feel comfortable with, but lethal protection is better than non lethal against an animal 3 times your size, I think.

>>1024083
Good stuff man, solid posts.

>>1024210
Thank you. That guy was such a dickhead though, i got sick of him just ignoring everything and going "But MUH STUDY"

>>1024103
A bear being shot with a 9mm is about the same as a human being shot with a pellet gun.

"Since 1900, there have been only 45-recorded deaths that were caused by black bears in the North America. This number is very minimal compared to the over 500 conflicts between black bears and humans from 1960 to 1980."

and

"Ninety percent of all known black bear attacks have only resulted in minor injuries" - both from http://ext.nrs.wsu.edu/publications/Blackbears1.htm

>>1024228
You sound like a person who would be the first to volunteer to experience a non-fatal mauling by a 900 pound bear. Am I reading this correctly?

>>1024228
I mean >>1022524 was non fatal. Dosent mean im gonna fucking play around with a bear man. And grizzly bears have killed way more than that.

>>1024228
so..... based on this, your advice for a bear defense weapon would be nothing? just risk it and if they do maul me, hope that I'm able to stumble back to civilization and find a hospital?

Best advice ever.

>>1024236
You're the kind of person that worries about home invasions and stockpiles firearms and fantasizes about shooting someone... meanwhile you're fat, lead a sedentary lifestyle, pre-diabetic, and will invariably die of complications due to shitty lifestyle.

If you are terrified of bears don't go in the forest.

>>1021984

The usual stuff. Make noise as you go to not surprise them, don't approach, store food properly.

If you're only in black bear country no real need to worry. Extremely rare they would attack, if one does fight back. Many people have survived black bear attacks by fighting back.

Grizzly bear, a lot more worrisome. They are more territorial and aggressive. If it charges play dead and pray it leaves you alone...if that thing wants you dead, you're dead.

Cougars you'll next to never see.

File: 13445656_716428581828510_7970140348962061720_n.jpg (188KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 720x960px

Black bears usually scare easier than brown bears. They are pussies compared to the brown bear.

That said if a black bear attacks you, you better fight because playing dead won't work.

>>1024272
Great argument - I mean ad hominem.

You're a real asset to /out/.

>>1024287
Hes just mad we debunked his study.

File: 1493552504671.png (1MB, 1061x595px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1061x595px

>>1024272
Stay BTFO nogunz

>>1024310
Eric Clanton?

>>1024326
That's Ian from Forgotten Weapons.

File: iantheliberator.png (290KB, 1165x915px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 1165x915px

>>1024326
How dare you insult based gun Jesus!

File: 1495763825393.png (239KB, 1221x722px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 1221x722px

wew this is pretty fucked to read through

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America

File: bearshot.gif (2MB, 501x261px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 501x261px

>>1024349
It is. It's a long a terrifying account of burrtacks over the years. That's why you don't dick around and just take a precaution or two. When a burr gets it in its head to take you, take you it will.

>>1024349
Lots of children getting pulled from their tents at night.

>>1024398
>>1024349
and what's it with minorities climbing into polar bear enclosures

File: file.png (55KB, 1318x230px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1318x230px

>>1024349
dat mivehind

File: geeps_br.png (99KB, 261x195px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 261x195px

>>1024417
this is why they're not majorities anon

>>1024349
>>1024422

Really gives me feel warm and fuzzy feeling as I look at my can of expired bear spray in my camping drawer.

>>1022019
Cougars tend to prey on college age men.

>>1022039
What the hell was a bear doing in a car?

>>1024436
they're avid motorists anon, just a bit prone to road rage is all

>>1024083
>>1024080
>>1024079
>>1024074


All of these arguments are completely invalidated since you're looking at one study.

I'm talking about several studies, of which you can find easily, that when compiles together, show clearly that bear spray is more effective.

You're looking at one study. There are many. There are ones that look at from 1980 to present, negating nearly your entire argument.

>>1024083
So your argument is, that as long as you're an expert marksman, which you are not, that guns work better than spray?

Ok how about this...


Since you're so convinced guns are more effecfive...


Find one single research article that supports this.

You literally have no argument of your own. Your only tactic is to try and discredit mine, which then you somehow believe that immediately makes your side true. You have no evidence at all.

I've presented my side, which all available research suggests is correct.

You've only tried to dismantle my side, without providing any of your own research or studies.

You have no argument, your only tactic is to try and discredit mine. Which you have been unsuccessful so far, since all you can do is basically say "yeah this study is way too biased so I choose to ignore it"

http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/igbst-home.htm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/09/150925-grizzly-bears-attacks-science-animals-bear-spray/

http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/bear_cougar/bear/files/JWM_BearSprayAlaska.pdf

http://www.fieldandstream.com/articles/hunting/2008/12/use-pepper-spray-instead-guns-stop-charging-grizzly

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/grizzly/bear%2520spray.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjAnLGQopDUAhUCziYKHT1zARkQFggdMAA&usg=AFQjCNFVfGa0pxO8CHL2PaqItqYWR0aViQ&sig2=do7NKFIa42MWDTlZAiBd3g

>>1024523
http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/research-bear-spray-stops-angry-grizzlies-better-than-guns/article_b0d338b6-7638-11e1-b809-0019bb2963f4.html

http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/bear_cougar/bear/files/JWM_BearSprayAlaska.pdf

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/sites/default/files/efficacy_of_firearms_for_bear_deterrence_in_alaska_2014_01_29_15_23_07_utc.pdf (firearm study)

http://www.backcountrychronicles.com/bear-spray-pepper-spray-vs-gun/

>>1024527
>>1024523
I'll take a shotgun and other precautions when in bear country. I'll sleep with a gun and hike with the spray. Why not have both?

https://youtu.be/mWHQ6dMnU6I

>>1024533
You can have both, but it's impractical, since the majority of dangerous bear encounters you will only have time to grab one of them.

Bear spray also has multiple uses, like if your mountain house Mac and need isn't spicy enough.

>>1022217
now here's the deal, bear mace doesn't rely on shot placement. Would it be easier to just buy bear mace? Sure. But if you already own a weapon, I'm sure the tactic of intimidating and scaring the bear would be bolstered by an unearthly, eardrum shattering gun shot into the air. I agree that shooting a bear is redundant, however, a yell can't hope to compare to the dazzling muzzle flash and bark of a gun. FFT

>>1024599
Of course someone will come in screaming that science isn't real and studies are flawed but 2 studies previously listed found a "warning" shot only detered aggressive bears less than 10% of the time.

>>1024646
You mean the study where it says
>"we do not claim that these rates represent the outcome for all bear–firearm incidents throughout Alaska or elsewhere."

>>1024514
This is absolutely not a valid rebuttal of his argument. The fact that you're bringing up more studies now doesn't change the fact that you (or someone with your same position) was only looking at one study before. All that anon set out to do was use that research as an example and show why it wasn't suitable to prove what you are trying to prove. He did that and you have not rebutted (or "invalidated") his argument at all.

>>1024516
>the "so" tell
Strawman fallacy. Not an argument.

>>1024518
I would like to explain the conversation to you in as honest and representative of a way as possible to show you where the logical and communication disconnect is happening. Please correct me if I get anything wrong.

You said:
>Claim 1) "Based on real life accounts of bear encounters when bear spray and guns were used in this set of recorded instances, the outcomes weren't significantly different."
>Claim 2) "This means that bear spray and guns are equally effective at deterring bears from attacking."

Claim (1) is supported by the evidence that you keep citing. No one is arguing against that. You are inferring Claim (2) to be true, however, based on the assumption that in all real life bear encounters, the only variable that was different was the weapon used.

It has been pointed out to you that:
>a) The research you are citing is insufficient to support such assumptions, regardless of how many studies you look at. It's the TYPE OF study that isn't sufficient, not the amount of data. These studies are simply not scientific tests of the efficacy of weapon type, and it was pointed out how easy it is to dissect one of these studies to show how they fail as scientific works even in what they set out to show.
>b) Common sense would say that your Claim (2) is incorrect. People hunt bears with guns. No one hunts bears with pepper spray. Those are facts as plain as gravity and you need to start addressing them if you want to convince anybody that you are right.

>>1024349
this is why every bear on this planet should be systematically hunted down and killed right now.

No, you won't find any study that has facts showing that a firearm is a more effective protection against a bear attack than bear spray.

A wounded bear is a killer bear. Miss and the bear will be pooping your gun out later with you.

Bear spray is more effective because it allows for a larger margin of error. The bear knows immediately (unlike a misplaced wound from a firearm) that it has hit a wall. It can't breath, it can't smell, it can't see. It wants out of the area as quickly as possible.

Your chance of getting the same immediate impact with a firearm is a lot less. Lots of hunters have been mauled or killed by bears they shot.

>>1024715
Except when none of that is true. Like with todd orr. Thats already been posted along with many other instances where thats happened.

>>1024703
It would destabilize the environment though. Look what happens when you introduce wolves to an area that didn't have them:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysa5OBhXz-Q

File: file.png (219KB, 1525x792px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 1525x792px

>>1024716

File: 1304376955947.png (457KB, 600x450px)

457KB, 600x450px

>>1024733
>using a wikipedia screenshot as a scientific source
>still havent addressed >>1024679 or any of >>1024074 >>1024079 >>1024080 Othaer than to say it dosent matter cause its only one study, one study youve been holding up as teh shining example of all your horseshit, when all those posts were just pointing out how that study dosent apply and dosent even support your horseshit in what it does say.

The fuck are you doing man, like are you getting paid for this? Cause your doing a shit job of it.

>>1024715
I would disagree with you on points, but I think you are saying something pretty common-sensible here that I can get behind in large part.

>If a given person misses with a gun, the bear is more likely to keep attacking compared to if he were miss with bear spray
I tend to agree with you on this. I also don't believe that the loud noise of the gun's report is enough to deter an attacking bear, so it's probably true that bear mace has a greater probability of having an effect in cases of user error.

Now here are my issues with that statement: a) Not all users have the same skill level, b) bear spray can be rendered useless by environmental conditions that do not affect guns, and c) the maximum possible effects are totally different.

For proof of (a), take a look at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSq96T-UrJ0
All I want to illustrate is that people do exist who can one-shot-kill a running wild animal. There are situations where looking at average success rates across groups of people actually does not make sense, and this is one of those situations, IMO. Yeah, we're talking about "exceptions," but the bigger problem in my mind is creating groups of people that include firearm users of such disparate skill levels. If you have the skills, you won't miss.

(b) What I'm talking about are windy conditions, potentially very rainy conditions or using bear spray through a tent wall or from inside your sleeping bag. I personally think that non-ideal conditions for bear spray use are very common in the mountains, and this is the main reason I don't trust the stuff.

(c) If we assume that each weapon/deterrent is used correctly, the maximum possible effect of bear mace is to cause a bear to lose interest in you for a period of time. It would be free to re-kindle interest in you and return to attack you later, though. With guns, in the hand of an expert user, the maximum possible effect is to kill the bear and eliminate its threat against you permanently.

>>1024757
Those are great points, actually.

>>1024757
>people do exist who can one-shot-kill a running wild animal
rofl and you moronic retard want to give out a general recommendation because there are 1 in a million people out there that can shoot a buzzing fly between the eye?

jesus!
>in the hand of an expert user
just stop, the morons bumbling about how mace is ineffective and their guns are not expert users they are fucking fudds that can't hit the side of a bus when startled.

>>1022162
Elmer Keith invented .357 for bear hunting.

>>1024794
Name-calling is not an argument

>>1024310
>Stay BTFO nogunz
I have plenty of firearms, I am an avid hunter. I don't need to carry a firearm on me when I'm hiking and not hunting.

I also was a forest surveyor for several years and spend lots of time in the bush. I'm not an angry urban kid obsessing over SHTF scenarios because my life sucks and I think I'll be some post-apocalyptic hero who decides the fate of my unprepared high school bullies and disappointed parents.

>>1024805
Post guns or else you just some autist who might be getting paid for this horseshit

>>1024724
>destabilize the environment though.
animals go extinct. nature adapts. nothing to worry about really

>>1024800
no that's just the syntactic sugar, the rest is the argument.

>>1024821
I keep telling you that name-calling is not convincing anybody, but you keep doing it, as if you're not learning. Maybe a totally different website would be more your speed. I suggest reddit.com.

>>1024794
>>1024821
You aregument of its a 1 in a million shot is invalid because it was captured on film, and has been consistenly. All over youtube.
>Muh expert user
Guns arent hard to shoot, or learn how to shoot well. Its about as hard as driving a car, at first its all scary and you see potential accidents all the time, but if your safe and practice anyone can master it. You dont have to be a nascar driver to dodge an accident, or survive bad traffic, and you dont have to be ultra operater teir to use a firearm adequately.

Your arguments arent arguments.

>>1024823
what a fucking moron... it's not that guns are hard to shoot it's that people in general like 95% of them are crap shots when they panic and they panic easily. so there you go with your operator fantasies and tell them "no don't be stupid don't use bear spray use a gun!"

fucking retard.
>Your arguments arent arguments.
oh but they are. you are just willfully ignorant.

>>1024823
You are wasting your breath on someone who is incapable of learning.

>>1024822
oh man, what a butt pained little sissy you are i can't believe it.

>>1024826
calling names still isnt an argument, and saying "95% of people are crap shots is not only an unfounded anecdote, it dosent even make sense. That and to further my argumetn, way less people die from gun use than traffic, even adjusted for population. So maybe guns are even easier to use adequately than cars.

>>1024828
name calling still isnt going to make people use bear spray man.

Are you getting paid for this? are you jsut an anti gun shill? Im starting to think you are.

>>1024830
>consistently ignoring the point
>whining about the language
you are a rare kind of cuck no doubt

Stop giving him (You)s.

>>1024832
>Consistently ignoring any argument that proves him wrong
>devolved into name calling
Are you or are you not getting paid for this.

>>1024831
oh wait i fucking love guns negro where did you get that i hate them?

it's not that, it's all about what recommendation should be given for random hikers that go into bear country? should they grab a can of bear spray and read 3 lines of instructions? or they buy a gun and try to use it in a situation that is highly stressful where they are prone to freeze up and miss because they are not fucking veteran soldiers or hunters for that matter.

i will say it again and again anyone recommending guns (and it's not about what i would take personally) is a fucking moron with delusions.

>>1024837
>Are you or are you not getting paid for this.

>>1024839
alright, i admit, i am, you blew my cover, totally exposed. shillary emailed my some buttcoins to common sense and frankly public domain knowledge on anonymous mongolian basket waving forums. yes i'm getting paid. i am also a bear.

>>1024840
>Are you or are you not getting paid for this.

>>1024841
yes yes i am also getting paid by george soros to advertise his secret bear spray and abortus business.

File: hh.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

>>1021984
Around bears? This with 3in magnum slugs. I need to get the tube extended though.

Ideally Id live to get an ithaca 37 for bear defense though.

>>1024809
>Post guns
I don't post personal information or images online. If gun ownership is incredible to you, that's your deal not mine.

>or else you just some autist who might be getting paid for this horseshit
Yeah bears pay me in chinook salmon and wild blueberries to convince urban fags to go in the forest without protection.

>>1024679
Of course people don't hunt bears with bear spray.

They also don't try and agitate the bear either, so that it becomes aggressive.

The point if hunting a bear is yo not have it notice you.

The only time a bear is a problem is when it does notice you.

When a bear is aggressive, your only concern should be making it stop be aggressive. Whether this be killing it, scaring it away, or detering it away with bear spray.

The easiest, and most reliable way to do this. Is bear spray.

>>1024855
>still shilling for mans greatest enemy

1/2 oz. of wild huckleberries have been deposited in your basket

>>1024716
Todd Orr only proves one thing.

Bear spray works.

He was attacked by a 1200lbs grizzly twice. Each time using bear spray.

In the end, he could walk, talk, and record a video.

Had he used a gun, did nothing, or anything else, he very well could have died.

The fact he is alive, is a testament to the spray.

>>1024831

I'm the anon that has posted the majority of the pro-spray talk.

I want to point out that prob 40% of the arguments for spray, including the ones with name calling are not mine.

There seem to be several anons all arguing for bear spray.

>>1024757
While I know you discredit every study that has been posted, the large study on efficacy of bear spray showed weather conditions has little effect on the efficacy of bear spray.

The study had showed each time wind or rain was reported as a factor, it still reached the aggressive bear, and each instance ended the bear's aggressive behavior.

While the study sample was someone small (aggressive bear encounters are extremely rare, relatively speaking), it showed even in high winds, the high velocity of the spray overcomes wind.

Also, you argue if each type of deterrent, spray and guns are used to their maximum effectiveness, then guns are superior. The argument against that is bear spray is much more likely to use to its maximum effectiveness, while the skill required under stress to achieve an instant kill shot to a large bear is relatively high.

If you're an expert marksman, who has nerves of steel, a large caliber gun, and are extremely proficient in laying down fire to an aggressive moving target, then you should not carry bear spray.

Honestly though, for the majority of people, under the majority of conditions, bear spray is more effective.

Why don't you just use bear spray and a gun at the same time?

>>1022007
she is annoying, but her instagram makes me think this is the most /out/ chick ever. She would be an adventure QT

https://www.instagram.com/merrymarymix/?hl=en

>>1024874
why don't we just have bullets filled with bear spray?

The reddit spacing meme is very real in this thread. Virtually every single shitpost without fail.

>>1024884
>reddit spacing meme
What?

>>1024887
>I've been found out?!

>>1022053
You've probably never killed and ate an animal, why are you on /out/?

>>1024523
>>1024527
Lets go through these, one by one, cuase lemme tell ya, they arent reason to use bear spray, they really are not.

>http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/igbst-home.htm
I don’t know what this is, but dosent show anything pertaining to this argument.
>http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/09/150925-grizzly-bears-attacks-science-animals-bear-spray/
Wow, a national geographic article, not one of the “many” “Broad” “Studies” you keep talking about, but lets go into it. It references the first study that ive already gone through and debunked, using a lot of the same statistics you did, in the same way that is misleading. It also references the bear spray study, made by the same people as, you guessed it, the firearms study that was really porrly done, but im doing that seperatley. Overall 3/10 article, uses a lot of sources that ive already critiqued or am about to critique and makes a lot of claims using those sources that are emotional or don’t add up.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/bear_cougar/bear/files/JWM_BearSprayAlaska.pdf
You list this twice, in the two comments, so what you thought was 9 sources is only , since this is listed twice. Right off the bat, written by the same guys who wrote the last study I found was shitty, so lets get into it. Just like the last study this is limited to just Alaska, this time from and the author says once again his results aren’t claimed to be representative. Shocker I know. Again anecdotes are used as data, which is shitty, and so are newspaper accounts, which is almost as shitty. And they used interviews to supplement information they couldn’t find, which is arguably worse than anecdotes since personal testimony is the lowest regarded form of evidence.
>We collected bear spray incident records from 1985 to 2006 from state and federal agencies, newspaper accounts, and anecdotally.
>Whenever records were incomplete, we interviewed individuals involved.

Continued

File: hhhhh.png (52KB, 368x532px)

52KB, 368x532px

>>1024960
The sample size was stupidly small, considering the same people used a sample size for almost 300 in the firearms study, when in this one they used one of 83, of which only 72 actually involved bears, some of them just involved misuse or whether or not bears where attracted or repelled to a spray, which laughable practically. I know you’ve said that bear encounters are hard to find, but they found close to 300 for the last study, so get over it. Another big thing that makes study worthless, Only 25 of the 72 that ACTUALLY involved bears involved bears that were aggressive. Whereas the last study had ALL of the encounters being aggressive. This is ridiculous, that means that in a sample size of 83 Only 86% ACTUALLY involved bears, and of those only 34% actually involved aggressive bears. Fucking pic related all in all the sample size of aggressive bears was 25, or 30% of the study is relevant.
>We deemed bears aggressive when the encounter included behaviors such as charging, agonistic vocalizations, or persistent following.
Oh wait it isn’t relevant anyways since it’s a sample size of 25!!!! Fuck!
Im not even going to continue with this link, its garbage, and it continues to be more garbage throughout the study, just like the last one.

> http://www.fieldandstream.com/articles/hunting/2008/12/use-pepper-spray-instead-guns-stop-charging-grizzly

Just like the national geographic link, except it while referencing the above study, it also goes in depth into some guy they found and his anecdotes.

>>1024963
Continuing still
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/grizzly/bear%2520spray.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjAnLGQopDUAhUCziYKHT1zARkQFggdMAA&usg=AFQjCNFVfGa0pxO8CHL2PaqItqYWR0aViQ&sig2=do7NKFIa42MWDTlZAiBd3g

Fish and wildlife pamphlet, something that goes out every few months and is supposed to be updated with the lastest facts and info, but rarely is and mostly just serves as a governmental version of “We warned you, you cant sue us” It dosent reference anything at all to back up its statements, may or may not be politically driven.

> http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/research-bear-spray-stops-angry-grizzlies-better-than-guns/article_b0d338b6-7638-11e1-b809-0019bb2963f4.html

Another article just like the last 2, referencing only the 2 studies ive already found out were trash, go read it, it even uses the numbers in such a way that you did, to mis represent the studies effectiveness. Oh and it also goes out of its way to shit on hunters and basically call guns a waste of money. So there’s that.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/bear_cougar/bear/files/JWM_BearSprayAlaska.pdf
Already did this one, but oyu listed it twice.

http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/sites/default/files/efficacy_of_firearms_for_bear_deterrence_in_alaska_2014_01_29_15_23_07_utc.pdf (firearm study)
Dead link, try again.

http://www.backcountrychronicles.com/bear-spray-pepper-spray-vs-gun/

a fourth fucking article using bad logic about ONLy the 2 studies ive already talked about, althrough for like a paragraph, most of it is just how to use bear spray, what brands to use, some tips about bear spray, really buzzfeed tier shit.

None of the links you posted, mean anything, the one study (You posted twice), was surprisingly even more trash and less relevant or credible than the first.

>>1024599
Bear spray does rely on shot placement, too early, or too late, and the bear isnt effected.

>>1024646
Science isnt a thing, its a method of thinking analytically and without bias, which you are not, and the studies you posted kinda did, but you are misusing them.

>>1024715
it hasent hit a wall, it hit a cloud, a cloud it can run through just fine, i personally think the only time it would stop in a cloud of spray during a charge is during a false charge. And you havent shown any evidence of what your saying anyways

>>1024865
Um no, not even close, Todd Orr did the only thing your supposed to do after a bear is already attacking you, huddle up and cover your vitals while not moving, the bear spray didnt do a thing, since it ran right through it, twice. and attacked twice. Hes lucky to be alive, but is alive from doing the only thing you can do after you fuck up and let a bear be on top of you.

>>1024868
I dont believe you, sorry.

>>1024871
Most of what you said isnt backed up, and the rest is memes
>nerves of steel, extremely proficient, moving target
I mean, most people need way better reflexes and nerves to navigate rush hour on the way home, where a quarter second or less means life or death, while todd orr had upwards of 4 whole seconds.
And the moving target thing, you know during a charge its right at you in a straight line, and thats the only time itd be going anywhere close to full speed and is a threat. Any other time, your shooting a non threat, which isnt the case in this discussion, or its not moving anywhere near that fast. So the "Shooting a target going 35 miles an hour" dosent add up, since from your frame of reference its just getting a larger target. And even if it was moving that fast, you know fast birds fly? Or the clay pidgons fly? between 30mph and 70mph, and those are going across a person, not right at them. People shoot those out of the air all the time, its a sport!

>>1021984
.357 magnum

>>1024983
People don't shoot birds out of the sky with a large caliber gun though. I mean, people don't ever hunt a flying bird with anything other than a shotgun, which would be useless against a bear. How about you try hitting a clay pigeon with a 300 Winchester mag, and see how successful you are.

And a bear charging in a straight line? Come on, that's idiotic, even under perfect conditions that bears brain isn't sitting still. Even a bear in an open field (which bear attacks rarely occur in as referenced by one study), the animal is going to be moving, and not always directly towards you.

You also can't argue that rush hour traffic is harder than defending yourself against a grizzly. That's really dumb.

Also, once again, you are only trying to discredit my arguments (and others arguments). You still have no provided any evidence at all of your side, besides your personal opinion, which is is full of guesses, confirmation bias, and fabricated fantasizes about what actual bear encounters consist of.

>>1024999
but I use a shotgun in bear defense, and I can easily shoot clays with slugs, the recoil sucks, but sometimes i dont have birdshot. How do bears charge anon? have you ever seen one? I have, and even if you didnt, why would a bear zig zag if its charging at you?

Your studies are debunked get over it, your numbers mean nothing. And I can argue rush hour traffic is more deadly than bear attacks since people every day on the highway, its this nations largest killer.

I dont even care if people use bear spray, but saying using a gun is impossible, is wrong, and saying bear spray is better because guns are impossible to use, is more wrong.

>>1025018
You're not reliably hitting clays with slugs, and the average person can't either. Rush hour traffic being more deadly would imply that being attacked by a bear is safer than driving. More people die every year from falling out of bed than from bears, that does not mean beds are more dangerous. You are more likely to die in a car accident. That merely reflects that there are far more vehicles in use every day than there are aggressive bear encounters every day.

The studies aren't debunked. You not agreeing with them is not the same thing as being debunked. You need to understand that.

Regardless of what you say, the studies are reliable, and are our best data to date. The data all suggests one thing, and that is bear spray works better.

You can continue to disagree, but since you have no data backing your side up, all you can continue to do is try and debunk mine.

Even if some how you could invalidate the data, which you can not, you still would have nothing to suggest your side has merit. You have nothing solid to back your side up. No studies, no data, no bulletins, no researchers, no universities, not even a gun manufacturer backed report. You have your opinion and a few youtube videos.

Guns are not impossible to use. I have lots of them. They all have their place and time. Guns are just not reliable enough to deter an aggressive bear. All available research, whether you choose to believe it or not, points to this fact.

I do not want to carry bear spray, is much rather carry a gun. In my mind I believe a gun should work. Data just says otherwise.

Until we have evidence, any evidence to suggest otherwise, bear spray will continue to be the most reliable, and effective way to deter an aggressive bear.

>>1025029
A sample size of 23 uses of bear spray isnt reliable data you mong.

>>1025033
You're misreading the data. The sample size is 72. The gun study was larger because it covered more time. It did not only include "aggressive bears".

Once again, no argument of your own. Only trying to discredit someone else.

>>1024868
Funny how this post has reddit spacing.....and 100% of the rest of the shitposting has reddit spacing too.

I don't even have to read people's posts to know what their position is on the subject. Just look at the formatting style the person chose to use.

>>1025033
I should also add, in all 23 cases, the bear spray worked.

The other cases involved bears that while we're not attacking, were stalking, or encroaching on humans without fear.

>>1025040
>>1025045
The sample size is 72, where all but 23 cases the bears weere just curious, not aggressive. This whole thing has been about aggressive bears, so only 23 cases in that study apply you idiot. I can pull off 23 cases off of just youtube where someone killed an aggressive bear with a gun but that means nothing because its 23 cases. Also
> In 85% (12 of 14; G1 ¼ 7.9, P ¼ 0.019) of aggressive encounters with brown bears, bear spray stopped the bear’s aggressive behavior;
Your just straight up lying. Im looking right at the study you idiot.

The other cases involved bears that were "Curious" Literally the word used, scaring them off could be done without bear spray and in some cases, it was.

a study of 23 cases with an aggressive, which the author admits may even be anecdotal, means literally nil. Including 11 cases where bears werent even around, or 46 cases where the bear was just walking by, also means nothing since your claim that you cant use guns agaisnt an aggressive bear, only includes aggressive bears.

Fucking christ, you arent addressing any of this.

>>1025045
If we cant take the firearms study at face value because of its small sample size, why would anyone take a study where the sample size is less than 10% of the firearms study?

Are bears a worry on the Appalachian Trail?

File: bear-areas-map.gif (226KB, 780x837px)

226KB, 780x837px

>>1025074
Pic related, but for most of it Id worry more about black, cougars, bobcats, homeless or cletus and his buddies. Also many of the states involved (mostly the northern ones) will fuck you over if you have a gun on you, so be aware.

>>1025079
It's not like they're going to search my bag or anything.. r-right?

I could carry legally from GA through WV, and again starting in VT. And maybe PA if I could get a non-resident permit somehow.

File: 1494979731053.png (99KB, 320x246px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 320x246px

>>1025087
it really depends on the police, how you present yourself and how often your going ot go into town.

There have been people who've lived on the trail for 20+ years and never dealt with another person, and others who sleep every other night in a hotel. Id keep it on the DL, but if you have to use it in on of those states where (Bullshit laws say you) shouldt have it, youll probably get fucked.

If your not a nigger who gets searched by police youll be find

Keep all this in mind, make your own choices, stay safe anon.

>>1024876
well someone should have taught her how to use a pepper spray. and not make prey noises near predators.

>>1025054
Bears just walking by is not the same thing as a bear encroaching on a human occupied area without fear, which is what the study would define as a "curious" bear.

No one is saying a gun is impossible to use on an aggressive bear. It's just the successful rate of detering an aggressive bear with a firearm is the same as not using a firearm. Aren't you the one preaching about strawman fallacy?.... which you literally just used in this post

You're citing the bear spray worked only 85% of the time, while failing the mention the 15% of the time it "didn't work" was when a brown bear was sprayed, caused a minor injury, and ran off. Which can be argued the spray was effective, as as large brown bear attacking a person generally causes way more than minor injuries.

I'm addressing every dumb point you make. You're just not listening. Learn the difference .

Once again, still not making any valid points of your own. Go ahead, I'll wait.

>>1025040
>aggressive bears
undesirable behavior is not necessarily aggressive, if a bear want's to befriend you or comes over for a scratch behind the ears i'm pretty sure for most people it's undesirable.

>>1025163
Bears don't befriend people in the wild

>>1025162
>I'm addressing every dumb point you make. You're just not listening.
yeah i noticed that he will cherry pick one part of a sentence and go on raging about how you hate guns and you are a shill and a faggot and not listening to him.

as a general advice bear spray is better, it's much much more foolproof. they say it doesn't work in strong wind if you look any tutorial about use "you need to strafe into the wind from the bear as you use it. you don't just stand there like a moron. use short bursts so you don't deplete your only defense needlessly." that's about it.

even if the bear charges through the cloud and reaches you you play dead the bear has spray all over it it will not be eating you as it will be miserable as hell. just lie down and cover your vitals. you are likely to suffer only minor injuries. when the bear comes back to eat your carcass you are already posting about it at home.

File: 34FA118800000578-3627983-image-a-2_1465235738449.jpg (65KB, 634x357px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 634x357px

>>1025165
some of them are awfully friendly. especially if they have been fed by humans.

>>1025168
>some of them are awfully friendly
i remember a funny vid
>some guy comes back to camp
>see his buddy is playing with a bear cub
>"what the fuck are you doing" asks hyperventilating
>"oh hey he is completely harmless"
>"t---tt-h--at's a grizzly!!!" says nervously looking around

>>1025168
"Friendly" bears are by far the most dangerous. They have associated people with food. Now, if they approach a human without food, they will still expect food. You are now their food.

>>1025167
I've noticed that. He has no arguments of his own, so just tried to discredit my argument, which does nothing to bolster his own.

>>1023930
Fuck you.
I watched that gay shit because you said it was hilarious.
I hope all Canadiens get genocided by bears.

File: ES_HMA_959_24_4.jpg (131KB, 1200x907px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1200x907px

>>1022007
>It's not even food
Oh man