The thing that riles me about the gun vs. spray argument is that so much of the "no gun" side depends on least common denominator thinking. They just seem to ass-ume that a gun toting hiker will not know how to run his gun under stress, that he has not practiced with it with hundreds of rounds, that in general he is a dumba**.

It gets old, and it drives me ignore their arguments.

There are so many variables at play with the "in XX out of YY bear encounters, guns didn't help" analyses that they are useless.

How about this: have spray, have a gun, and be a flippin' surgeon with that gun.