Posted on 03/01/2019 3:54:59 AM PST by marktwain
One of the issues in determining the efficacy of guns and bear spray in stopping bear attacks is how to decide if an incident should be included in the database.
One of my selection criteria is: an incident should only be included if the bear spray was actually sprayed or if a shot were actually fired. Here are two examples of incidents that should not be included in the statistics for the efficacy of either bear spray or firearms. The first is an example of when the bear spray was available, but not used.
On 23 July 2011, a group of seven young men were attacked by a grizzly bear. They carried bear spray, but in the speed and chaos of the attack, no one used it. Three of the young men, two aged 17, one 16, were seriously injured. One was injured but was released from the hospital the same day. That was Victor Martin, who kicked the bear in the face when it grabbed his leg. From aspentimes.com:
The attack Saturday night in the Talkeetna Mountains north of Anchorage came as the group was nearing the end of a 30-day course to learn how to survive in the backcountry. The teens were at the stage of the course where they could try out their skills without adults around.
Authorities believe the bear was aggressive because it was with its cub. Gottsegen said no one ever saw a cub.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Massad Ayoob’s In the Gravest Extreme, though getting old at this point, and some parts a little outdated, is still quite useful. He spends quite a bit of time exploring the issue of mindset, whether you are ready and willing to actually use that firearm in the gravest extreme. Worth it just for those parts, but there are other parts to recommend it. In fact, I did recently.
That was Victor Martin, who kicked the bear in the face when it grabbed his leg...
Perhaps legs should be included in weapon efficacy :)
I read about a boxer than punched a bear in the nose and the bear left. Of course he had already sustained a bad gash after his first punch missed.
Not because it wouldn’t still easily overcome the opponent, but i guess it figured it wasn’t worth the hassle.
A worthwhile book. Been decades since I read it, but I did re-read passages recently.
I first bought a bell then later got spray.
Just carry a picture of Pelosi with you...and a .357 or bigger handgun with hollow points.
Passing those bells has got to be hell, not to mention that pepper ...
.357? Yeah but minimum. Good for black bear. Hollow points? May not get through a thick skull to the brain or dense fur and muscle to vitals. FMJ or lead hard cast might be better for penetration, or alternate between hollow and FMJ in cylinder or magazine.
...the holster, not the fish.
Heavy, solid flat-faced bullets for DEEP penetration!
Hollow points are for two-legs style varmints.
Why carry bear spray or a gun if you are not going to use it?
Very nice.
Lots of reasons.
People may carry it because someone told them they have to have it.
People often think of defensive tools as a magic talisman to ward off evil.
People believe they will have plenty of warning, and plenty of time, to access their defensive tool.
People don't rehearse possibilities. When it happens, they are caught in denial "This can't be happening!"
What holster?
Now for the final exam!
(That’s funny)
...the holster, not the fish.
What fish?
“Que The Bear!”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.