Reading the articles in question, it seems apparent that the discussion is a skirmish in the larger conflict over the 2nd Amendment and the right to carry which obscures what should be an objective, relatively unemotional inquiry about the relative merits of bear spray and firearms. This is actually a relatively knotty problem, since not all "incidents" are equivalent.

I am caught in the middle on this. Basically, I am a life long owner and user of firearms, but with increasing knowledge and experience, I carry less and less when outdoors. If bear spray is going to be as effective as bullets in an encounter, what is there not to like in a gadget that is lighter and cheaper?

Also missing from the discussion is the need to develop good habits when in bear country - situational awareness, clean camps, proper food storage. Doing right in those areas and you may never have to deploy either gun or spray.