Handguns successfully killed or deterred bears 97% of the time in 37 analyzed cases

Jesus Christ you're dead set on this not being real. All the studies on this issue have been deeply flawed so far so I guess that's fair but honestly I'm going to shoot a charging bear and not spray some eye burning bullshit like I'm a scared college girl getting pulled into a dark alley.

Yeah, it is obvious you did not even read it. Too many words, right? Ain't nobody got time for that.

>ammoland carries buffalo bore cheaper than their website

>ammo store coudlnt possibly carry bearspray and deal with a fraction of the legal issues of sending mace in the mail

Stop being such a fucking faggot.

>all you need is a spray.
youtu.be/0MBnBjeQco4

>use bear spray
>in a tent/against the wind

I'll go with 10mm auto, thanks.

did they distinguish between types of bear in the article?dont have time to read it so just summarize

So... what I'm getting from this sentence is that 3% of bears are actually bear terminators in disguise?

this

I can't carry a firarm because of reasons so I CC a saw for bears.

Attached: IMG_0668.jpg (4032x3024, 2.67M)

Yeah, but there's brush fuckin' everywhere!

looks like you accidentally bought the model made for environments without brush

I'd buy it.

Nice try, bear.

Attached: 1539783302744.jpg (756x324, 53K)

Ammoland?

Attached: 1540311209398.jpg (750x1111, 521K)

That's because the cases in which a handgun failed don't get analyzed. It's sample bias.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias#Sampling_bias

But then you have to factor in people like me. I was on a ridge when I saw this bear.

Attached: IMG_0219.jpg (3264x2448, 3.98M)

But by the time I got there to fire warning shots at it, it had left.

Attached: IMG_0228.jpg (1632x1224, 1.13M)

>make percentage statistics on less than 100 replicates

how revolting

>But by the time I got there to fire warning shots at it
>But by the time I got there
>I got there

Oh fuck there's a bear within a 100 yards! I better run at it and fire warning shots at it!
People like you shouldn't own guns.

>not warning the bear with 300 yard potshots from a 10mm handgun while standing unsupported across a windy ridge

Underrated

>100 yards
>300 yards
Unsure how far it is now but still, going to the danger to fire "warning shots" at it is incredibly a fake story. Nigger tried killing a bear with his hand gun.

>But by the time I got there to fire warning shots at it
fire some warning shots into your thick skull

>fighting a bear
>winning
sounds bretty cool desu. Unless you get killed then you're a faggot

well you don't hear back from the dude's who get eaten

>bear spray works fucking magic
Except it doesn't. Everything else you said is right, but that's stupid advice that will get someone killed.

>tfw you realize there is no meaningful pharmaceutical research being done right now that is not totally controlled by a drug seller
>tfw you notice that the Sacklers are almost never mentioned in mainstream discussions about the opioid crisis

Feel free to post contradictory data, opinions don't count.

>Man up
A man solves his problems as effectively and efficiently as he can and doesn't gamble his life to appease others you limp wristed faggot

Hmmm 10mm or faggy bear spray can’t decide which

He wont, there literally isnt a single data set that supports bear spray that isnt anecdotal.

Attached: not a bear.png (1020x621, 286K)

You're right, but as a last resort, I'm bringing some 10mm
Fuck off

This is why I don't listen to people on this website

lmao wtf

You have two hands you idiot.

>a whopping sample size of 37 cases selected by an emotionally and financially invested 3rd party
Stop the presses.

/thread

So could you explain why the cited sources are invalid or are you going to keep post austisic shit that shows you didn't read the article?

I don't get the problem people have with shooting bears. Yeah, you don't want to kill such pretty animals for no reason, but if you seriously feel afraid for your life why should you have to gamble with spray that can be defeated with some wind. I know if I was risking my life I would do everything possible to get the odds in my favor.

I tried 1/4 mile shots into that sand mound. It drops about 15 feet or so.

>Get a mace
But if you smash the bear's skull, how will you make a helmet out of it?

If someone gets eaten by a bear in the middle of nowhere, do you think his story is going to make it into the data? You don't know what you don't know.

Not him but there are roughly 3 fatal bear attacks reported annually on the continent of N. America and the highest number ever recorded was 6. I doubt that unknown unknowns increase that to any appreciable degree. If there's anything to criticize here it's the overall sample size and not that a number of people that's probably in the single digits (even assuming they all had handguns) weren't included.

>there are roughly 3 fatal bear attacks reported annually on the continent of N. America
And do all those reports have detailed information about what gun and ammo, if any, the person was carrying when he got eaten?
>I doubt that unknown unknowns increase that to any appreciable degree.
What is that doubt based on? Unknown unknowns are, by definition, unknown.

>And do all those reports have detailed information about what gun and ammo, if any, the person was carrying when he got eaten?
Feel free to look.
>What is that doubt based on?
The relatively low likelihood that the margin of error on these numbers is so great that adding unknown fatal bear attacks will turn an average of 3 annual deadly bear attacks per year into so much as double digits, especially when disregarding people who don't fall into the groups that this study is looking for.

>And do all those reports have detailed information about what gun and ammo, if any, the person was carrying when he got eaten?
I imagine a researcher would be able to get their hands on that, if they're just tracking down 3 cases per year it wouldn't be that much effort.

>Somehow infinitely more valid than anything supporting bear spray as an option
Fun.

>And do all those reports have detailed information about what gun and ammo, if any, the person was carrying when he got eaten?
3 have occurred in the last 2 years where the deceased opted for bear spray.
And thats a fact.

True, 2x 10mm sub machine guns it is.

I take 2 10mm's with me sometimes.

Attached: DSCN4313.jpg (3264x2448, 1.71M)

>The relatively low likelihood that the margin of error on these numbers is so great that adding unknown fatal bear attacks will turn an average of 3 annual deadly bear attacks per year into so much as double digits,
How do you know it's a low likelihood?
>especially when disregarding people who don't fall into the groups that this study is looking for.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. What groups of people should be excluded and why?
OK, but what does that tell us about handguns?

>How do you know it's a low likelihood?
Are you going to turn this into one of those "we don't know everything so we can't know anything" deals? Because that's low hanging fruit and frankly asinine.

>I'm not sure what you mean by that. What groups of people should be excluded and why?
Well that depends on
>what gun and ammo, if any, the person was carrying when he got eaten
doesn't it?

>Are you going to turn this into one of those "we don't know everything so we can't know anything"
No, I am not. There are some things we can and do know about shooting bears. I am merely asserting that using data is not a reliable way of knowing things. I work as a pollster, so I am painfully aware that real world datasets are almost never complete. They are therefore inconclusive.

>using data is not a reliable way of knowing things

Attached: 1507414023262.png (171x164, 3K)

>I am merely asserting that using data is not a reliable way of knowing things.

Attached: 1532703104607.gif (360x346, 218K)

>I am merely asserting that using data is not a reliable way of knowing things.

Attached: realizationcayou.png (726x677, 448K)

>I am merely asserting that using data is not a reliable way of knowing things

Attached: 1487282793619.jpg (336x330, 23K)

Hey there my fellow nigger. Can I interest u in some chicken, nigger?

based data denier

Attached: 1540004900179.jpg (794x960, 30K)

Trust me. I'm a pollster. Most people don't answer surveys, and those who do are not always truthful. They mostly give the same answer to every question in the survey just to get it over with.

Yea wait around for somebody to make material in question distorted summary for you to read save time verse just read the material yourself everybody know you got time you are just lazy lard ass with insufficient brain cells.

>I'm a pollster
>I collect data that I think is shit so all data is shit!
The fact you have a job doing something as retarded as polling proves you wrong, obviously someone thinks the data you get in aggregate is important enough to pay your stupid ass, stop talking bullshit.

>Most people don't answer surveys
Yeah I'd imagine that's especially true of people who were killed by bears which is what this chain is about in case you'd forgotten.

Attached: 1491417576841.jpg (225x225, 11K)

Boys, do yourselves solid and get hard cast bullets for when you're in the woods. Buffalo Bore and Underwood Ammo both got good options.
9mm / .40 S&W/ .45 ACP will all do with a hard cast truncated bullet design that does crushing damage as it penetrates deeply.

I read that btfo multiple times, felt good every time.

>Trust me. I'm a pollster.

Attached: 1540256553161.jpg (1440x1611, 274K)

>peaceful bears living in harmony with nature
YEAH KILLEM

Attached: index.png (255x198, 9K)

>Peaceful bears
There's no such thing there's bears that fear man and bears that don't anymore because faggots like you don't shoot them on sight.

>Found the city boy

You faggots need to do your own research, there is really no definitive study to show a gun is better than spray or vise versa. Just by thinking in a general pattern that hunters don't carry spray and hikers don't carry guns it is truly a hard thing to study.

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

fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/species/mammals/grizzly/bear spray.pdf

ammoland.com/2018/06/dave-smith-on-bear-spray-or-firearms-for-defense-against-bears/#axzz5UtQYQcKS

wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jwmg.342

bearbiology.org/fileadmin/tpl/Downloads/URSUS/Vol_11/Miller_Tutterrow_Vol_11.pdf

>Both firearms and bear spray are excellent tools in the right situation, but asking a hunter who is carrying a rifle to use bear spray against an attacking grizzly is like asking a carpenter to cut a two-by-four in half using a hammer. I believe it is the responsibility of state and federal agencies to tell hunters the truth about how to defend themselves if a grizzly decides to charge.
hcn.org/articles/bear-spray-for-hunters-a-reality-check

On my own note, I used to live on Kodiak Island, Alaska. I carried a Glock 20 or bear spray depending on the occasion. Sometimes I'd carry both.

>I work as a pollster
>I am merely asserting that using data is not a reliable way of knowing things.

I see you work for Nate Silver.

Stop posting this fucking bullshit.

>outsideonline.com/1899301/shoot-or-spray-best-way-stop-charging-bear
Literally conjecture and blogposting
>fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/species/mammals/grizzly/bear spray.pdf
Bullshit bulliten which solely references this
>wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jwmg.342
Which is complete bullshit and relies strictly upon anecdotes and newspaper articles for less than 70 accounts to pad its "conclusions" and the author admits it would be different if he had data, but all he has is anecdotes.
>ammoland.com/2018/06/dave-smith-on-bear-spray-or-firearms-for-defense-against-bears/#axzz5UtQYQcKS
Again, blogposting and bullshit.

Fuck off with your misinfo

>t. bear

anyone ever hunt bears with a pistol? thinking about trying it with my contender

If data doesn't differentiate between black bears and grizzly bears, it's not worth using.

If data doesn't differentiate between black bears and grizzly bears, it's probably talking about black bears, especially with regards to "lethality against bears".

someone post this on /out/ and link the thread here. i want to witness the autistic screeching.

>it's probably talking about black bears
Black bears are one of the easiest animals to scare away.
>probably
Unreliable data is unreliable.

...

Basically no reason for anything more than .44Mag, and Sierra Club faggots BTFO.

>obviously someone thinks the data you get in aggregate is important enough to pay your stupid ass
Yeah, it's the government, which isn't exactly known for spending money wisely.
Which proves my point.
>there's bears that fear man and bears that don't anymore because
Because people feed them.
Most of my work is for hospitals, who are mandated to do surveys in order to get gov't money. I occasionally do political polls as well.

trips of truth, bearposter begone

Most bear encounters are with black bears, therefore data which does not differentiate is most likely talking about black bears.

You're a faggot who polls people for a living, if you were smart enough to asses the data yourself you wouldnt be a fucking pollster you retard, now fuck off.

>proves my point.
Was your point that
>Most people don't answer surveys
because they were killed by bears and that's why
>using data is not a reliable way of knowing things
?

All I was trying to get at was there is no study out there to prove that a gun is better than bear spray or that bear spray is better than a gun.

One of the articles posted even goes to say choose the right tool for the job.

Don't sperg out faggot.

>Don't sperg out faggot.
Dont post misinfo, and you wont get called out for posting misinfo.

The only thing supporting bear spray is anecdotes.

You complain about "blog" posts that I shared. There is nothing but blog posts to support either side of the argument here.

I'm not really arguing for one over the other, I have first-hand knowledge and have carried both for grizzly protection. I believe went used correctly both will deliver the same objective.

Chill bro.