iFlipThis is not factually correct. This is a common myth, but a myth. https://www.ammoland.com/2019/10/government-view-of-bear-spray-vs-firearms-for-defense-against-bears/#axzz6VbXNXHZp
If you know how to use a firearm properly, a gun is significantly better than bear spray. If you don't understand firearms, then yes, please stick with bear spray. I'll stick with my gun and I'm very confident in that decision.
I researched that for a few minutes, and here is what I have:
- The bottom line is that no study has ever attempted to compare the effectiveness of bear spray to that of firearms. All studies are limited both by the outright rarity of bear attacks and the inability to recreate them in a controlled environment. We’re parsing an incredibly small number of encounters influenced by a huge number of variables, then trying to arrive at definitive conclusions. The best we can do is compare disparate data sets, applying our own subjective criteria to try and arrive at an inadequate conclusion.
- I'm not really trusting "ammoland.com", no offense. But even their point doesn't seem to be that guns are better, just that "Bear spray has NOT been shown to be more effective than firearms in stopping bear attacks.", so essentially, lack of conclusive data.
- And lastly, here is what the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has this to say on the topic:
"based on their investigations of human-bear encounters since 1992, persons encountering grizzlies and
defending themselves with firearms suffer injury about 50% of the time. During the same period, persons
defending themselves with pepper spray escaped injury most of the time, and those that were injured
experienced shorter duration attacks and less severe injuries."
At the end of the day, you'll do whatever you want to do, but I would tend to encourage people to follow the advise of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and not ammoland.com
