My sister and I were talking today about preparedness, of course because of NOLA. I have been contemplating purchasing pocket size 357’s, 22’s single shot 410’s bla, bla, bla for my immediate family so that in the event of an NOLA type situation they could at least keep what they have.

My sister made a great point however. (Please don’t bring the PC thing into this) As a woman she pointed out that she would have a really hard time pulling the trigger. Not to say that I wouldn’t but I think we all know the reality of the gender difference. She said that she would much rather have a bear pepper spray that would virtually incapacitate many people in a close range situation and have no regrets. (She also said she appreciates the fact that her husband carries) I think this is great! It would allow a woman or man for that matter to take the first “shot” without having to weigh the consequences of potential murder charges. I would be much more willing to spray an assailant with pepper and probably avoid all problems immediately rather than risking the consequences of a gun shot. Don’t get me wrong the .44 is in the bag but I really think the bear spray is a great idea of first line of defense for urban survival.

What does your little sister think?

Cameron

I don't have a little sister (and I'm no expert), but I'd like to point out that OC spray only gives you some time. Enough time to get a head start running, but make sure you think through the "what next" part. This makes it a particularly poor choice for the elderly for example - IMO.

Also, make sure you select a quality OC and understand spray patterns and select one that is approprate. I understand the Fox Labs spray is good and think a 2oz size is a good tradeoff of size vs capacity. Their "flip top" lid version prevents accidental activation.

Typical spray patterns are stream, cone and foam. Stream goes the farthest, but is harder to hit the target. Foam is for indoor use since otherwise it could get the user as much as the assailant. Cone is in between and probably the best compromise.

I'd also be fairly leary of using it against crowds. The problem is as I was saying is that it only buys you time. Some folks are less prone to it as well. The chances you hit everyone is pretty low. You add up all the things that can go wrong and the chances are that at least one person isn't going to be incapacitated for one reason or another and they are going to grab you. The other downside is that being sprayed isn't going to improve their mood any.

Another option to consider is a collapable baton, like the Monadnock Autolock. Perhaps in conjunction with the OC spray. I haven't handled the Monadnock Autolock, but I have the ASP batons and didn't realize they rattled - a serious drawback IMO. The Autolock shouldn't have that problem. 21/22" is a pretty good compromise between concealability and useful length. It would be nice to have something more like 26", but it's probably not going to be as easy to conceal.

In any case, you are going to want to pursue training, and I have no idea about the legal issues in your area.

For example, in WA, the way I understand things (and I'm NOT a lawyer!), you are probably OK to carry a baton as long as you don't use it to intimidate anyone. So, whipping it out casually wouldn't be OK, but keeping it hidden, and only deploying it if you were attacked probably is fine. Did I mention I'm not a lawyer? And of course in many places, it's pretty much illegal to defend yourself in any way.

And of course, it sounds like you can expect to be sued in any case.

-john

I carry some while running but only for protection against dogs. Remember, some people have a higher tolerance for pain than others. You may incapacitate one slimeball but the next one might only be enraged enough to throttle you. It is certaintly better than nothing however.

Regards, Vince

I'm certainly no defensive firearms expert, but I have done some reading ... while contemplating keep in mind that the 22 rifles/pistols and 410 shotguns simply do not have sufficient stopping power.

Even higher powered rifles offer an aiming disadvantage.

For home protection, everything I've read says to get a 12 guage pump-action shotgun and load it with #1 buckshot.

With that says, I agree with your sister. For many of us the thought of blasting away another human being boggles the mind. While I have no doubt that I could do it to truely protect myself or my family, not having been in that situation, it would be hard to know when to pull the trigger.

Does anyone know the legalities of defensive use of firearms? It seems that I've read you can't shoot someone simply to defend your property - it had to be for protection of life. Do they have to be INSIDE my home before I can pull the trigger?

Yeah. I've heard this from men and women. What she really means is that she can't, sitting in a familiar environment with the lights on and no obvious threat, imagine a situation in which should could kill. I have a feeling she'd react differently if, say, a child or a family member were in danger.

This is a good point! Sure sure we all know that OC is not a reliable as a firearm for defense, HOWEVER that only applies if youre willing to pull the trigger without a second thought. If youre going to hesitate with a lethal weapon and not going to hesitate with a non-lethal weapon then non-lethal is probably the way to go particularly for those that are not constantly training for lethal encounters (and weekends at the shooting range are not what I consider training for lethal encounters). This is an excellent point that you've brought up. I hope it makes us all think about our situations and those of the people we care about. Thanks for the enlightenment.

<img src="/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />
My little sister aint so little and also a former Marine. And also from reports, all private citizen, non-LE, Militarty, security, etc. weapons are being confiscated. Nuff said.

Agreed. Get OC spray made for use on humans. If you are worried about size, Fox Labs maxes some huge ones:

http://www.foxlabs.com/Products.html

-john

I'm not a lawyer....that said....I've lived in NYC. I live in Florida. In NYC you couldn't even carry 'pepper spray' legally. In Florida (technically) you need the Concealed Weapons Carry Permit (even if you never plan on carrying a firearm) just to carry the pepper spray. The laws are so specific that if you have any questions about what you can and can not carry...check your local laws. I'd start with a Gun Shop....they usually have a general starting idea of some of the things you can do.

I'll come out of lurker status to suggest your sister obtain some training which focuses on the very moral, ethical and legal issues which concern her.

My experiences were through FrontSight though I'm sure there are others cheaper, closer, etc. Training there emphasizes that you are the actual weapon and, as such, it is your mind which needs trained and honed.

I will confess that I entered training somewhat plagued with testosterone poisoning. I've left what I've had thus far realizing how far I've yet to go before I feel comfortable with a defensive firearm.

Latvija

it's not the rational part of your brain that going to stop you from pulling the trigger. It's a deeper part more "primitive" part of the brain that stops you from killing another person.

During and before WW 2, only 2% of the frontline soldiers actually have had shot to kill. The rest didn't because they couldn't, they where stopped by there primitive part of there brain. Those 2 % that can shoot people won't suffer from psychological damage afterwards, the rest usually will if they did killed a person.

These days army's train there soldiers in such a way, so they can pull the trigger easier, because they have "conditioned" there soldier to associate the enemy with shooting at them. (Bit like Maslov and his dog.) But these training methode won't prevent you from getting pshylogical damage, unless your one of those 2%.

So wenn you plan to use firearms to defend yourself, make sure you'r properly trained (so you will pull the trigger if you have too) and accept the fact that you will most likely suffer pshylogicaly if you do pull the trigger. Ofcorse you don't have to fire a firearm to be effective. Pumping a 12 gauge will be pretty effective in scaring unwanted people away.
Having something thats more effective than showing the gun and not as effective as shooting, will fill the gab between them and prevents you from doing thing you don't want to do, unless there is no other way. Or incase you discover that pulling the trigger is a bit harder than you have thought.

It seems to me that your sister hasn't yet even faced the decision of whether or not she is willing to use lethal force. That may take some time. I know of people who swore that they would NEVER use it and after some serious contemplation, have changed their minds. The question is not an easy one. She needs to look into it a lot. I will reccomend a book by Massad Ayoob titled Stressfire. While it deals primarily with (obviously) the use of lethal force via a firearm, it delves into the physical and psycological aspects of it. Another good book IMO is his book In The Gravest Extreme. It too deals primarily with Firearms, however it too speaks of when you may need to use lethal force. They also talk about what to expect afterwards...legally and emotionally. Whenever I taught firearms classes I'd strongly reccomend reading them. Although they are both relatively small in size....They read very well and easily but provoke a lot of thought.

If you plan on using pepper spray in a rioting/martial law type situation you better get one of these:


Personally I would rather have Less-than-lethal shotgun rounds instead of pepper spray. Just the look of a shotgun may be enough to ward of most, no matter who is holding it. While a women holding a can of pepper spray isn't as intimidating.

If you're shooting at someone, is the objective to kill on the grounds of self defense? Or is your objective to scare someone away by spraying them with birdshot?

I can imagine the law suites coming after maiming them, but not killing them, with birdshot.

I think he meant rubber bullets or bean bag shot or the like. Rounds designed to be less lethal rather than just inapproprate rounds.

Even so, there has been a lot of discussion on the internet about the wisdom of less lethal rounds for self defense.

My take on it is that these rounds were developed to be used in controlled situations by trained professionals (consider police shooting a knife weilding holed up suspect with bean bag shot instead of shooting him outright). It's unclear that this translates well to a self defense situation.

-john

I don't have a little sister to ask, but if someboby's desperate enough to try to take my "stuff" by force, I don't want them coming back (that much more P.O.ed) after the sting of the pepper spray wears off... something else to think about, eh???

Troy

Chances are if you spray them with Fox 40, hit them with a club, or shoot them with rubber bullets you are going to get sued either way. But, If someone can't handle shooting someone with regular slugs/buckshot then the best alternative would be L-T-L rounds, it would make it a lot easier mentally to shoot someone and could be used effectively at a distance (If I was a women I would rather keep four guys 30 feet away from me, then have them be at arms reach trying to use pepper spray or hit them). It would also be just as effective, if not more effective then pepper spray (which has also killed people, so it isn't 100% L-T-L either). Plus it still has the intimidation effect of a shotgun even if you don't fire a single shot.

BTW, L-T-L wern't just developed for police use, they have been around for a long time for home defense. Years ago it was common to keep a home defense shotgun loaded with salt shot with the thought that it wouldn't kill, but it would stop the threat by causing them extreme pain.

<img src="/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />
Allright guys, there's a time and place for everything. All this talk of guns and the talk of defending oneselves with guns is making me a bit squeamish. Have any of you ever considered trying the SNIVEL Technique? <img src="/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Being you're in Richie's Republic, you're pretty much burned, even if they're in your house (Yes I'm from Illinois... for now) but my own personal choice is to be tried by twelve rather than being carried by six. Come to my home with ill intent in mind, and you won't leave under your own power, period.

Troy

My thought is this....if you have a firearm and you pull it out...LTL or not....it is CAPABLE of and generally seen as LETHAL force. If you want LTLONLY then go completely LTL.

There are new tasers available for use that work even on drug hyped perps. Even the manufacturer of that says that it is for deployment at the 15-20 ft range. That is well within the the lethal range of 21 feet that officers are advised on. So if someone is with range of the taser and they have a knife......lethal force is justified. Many have said that the taser is good for those who CAN"T go with a firearm or for those who Won't (for whatever reason).

Tasers are very illegal in many states, they are also not completely L-T-L. Especially if the person is wet, has a pacemaker, ect. It also relies on batteries being charged and kept topped off. It isn't something like OC or L-T-L shotgun rounds that can be bought and left alone for years until it is needed. Also, they are one shot only unless you keep changing the front piece, many people can get up again and keep fighting a few seconds after being hit, and they arn't very accurate.

Re: less than lethal rounds: they are a) factually misplaced, and b) legally irrelevant.

Factually: any round intented to be sub-lethal can be lethal, and in a self defense scenario they are dumn. If you are in a lethal force situation, use lethal force. Get used to the idea.

Legally: the 12 bore from which you are fieing that round is an inherently lethal weapon. If you kill someone with a round intended to to be sub-lethal, your intent will not save you from a felony murder charge. The circimstances of trhe shoot may, i.e., clear self defnese or defense of other persons and property, in which case it does not matter what you used -- you were privielged to shoot to kill.

Pay no attention to the stories about folks tht were sued for everything they own because they shot burglar that lived. Those stories are for the most part tort reform propaganda. I have made this offer for over ten years: if you get sued in a civil court for shooting a burglar, tresspasser, or other assailant in your home, I will represent you for free.

Lastly, talk to cops. A good way to get killed is to try to shoot NOT to kill. Get over it, or don't buy the gun. Center of mass or nothing, folks.

I agree....tasers are illegal in many places....so are stun guns. The new(er) taser use electricity in the frequency range of what our bodies use to transmit nerve impulses. The new tasers use the same frequency and it causes our muscle to massively contract....involuntarily. There is no physical way to prevent it. That is why the taser works on the druggies when stun guns don't. Stun guns just give the massive shock and temporarily 'stun' you. Some people aren't affected by it.

Yes I agree that they are not the most accurate too....My point is just that I don't think someone should be using a firearm when all they want is something LTL.

My father is a paramedic and has had 100's of conversations with peace officers on this topic. He has always gotten the same response, (paraphrased)
"If you are in fear of you life or the lives of the people around you, you can use lethal force without reservation."
That is my basic rule on useing leathal force.

With all due respect, I'm not an attorney and I agree with you on most of this but the problem here in <img src="/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> Richies Republic, unlike Texas, IIRC, You probably be in deep do-do for using lethal force for defending of property. Nice offer, hopefully none of us will have to take you up on it someday.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but if there really is a CLEAN case [unprovoked] out there where someone was found liable for a shooting in defense of home, I would like documentation of it, if for no other purpose than to pass it on to many other lawyers who keep track of such things.

When hunting deer, many think that the mature buck is the smartest animal on 4 legs. The truth is, a mature doe is a hunters greatest adversary. Everyone agrees that a female bear would rip you apart if you came near her cubs, but most don't give doe the same credit. Why? They're both female. Doe are extremely wary and closing in on them, with their young, is very difficult. I think that fact that there are more doe to see and shoot gives them the "easy" rap.

My wife is not much of an outdoorswoman and the sweetest woman you could meet. She should really have been a kindergarten teacher. But come near one of our daughters in an unkind way and she would grab her 357 from under the bed, blow your head off, and have dinner on the table by 5. She absolutely adored our dog (1/2 Rott and 1/2 Lab). He was really her first child in a sense, until he growled at our first daughter. That happened one time. A couple broom sticks later and he's our girls best friend. Don't screw with mom. Truth is, she'd probably shoot you before I would. And I'm still not certain who the better shot is.

Guns are not for everyone and I never tried to talk anyone into to getting one. I don't know if your sister is a mother, but if she is, and the time came, I think she'd have a harder time stopping after the the third or forth shot.

Let me also comment on the litiguos liability of shooting someone. I am well aware of the potential liability. If you are involved in a justified shooting, you'll spend about $70,000 defending yourself and getting cleared. Not mention the social repurcussions of those who label you a killer. But my fear of using pepper spray is twofold.

First, pepper spray probably won't stop someone on crack. Do you want to take that chance as they're charging you? Are they on drugs...aren't they? Too many decisions in an already stressful situation. Rack the slide on your 12 gauge and you probably won't have to find out. It's amazing how quickly that sobers them up.

Second, if you use pepper sray, then your life must not have been in danger, at least in the educated opinion of 12 people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty. So, if the spray doesn't work and you were lucky enough to get a second chance at doing the job right with your 44, how will you explain that "all of a sudden" your life was in danger.

Guns are a last resort and I will always run if I can. But if I have to fight, unfortunately, it will be to the death. And I pray it never comes to that, because although better off alive, my life would never be the same.

My understanding has always been that so long as the invader is inside your home there fewer legal issues, but that shooting someone outside your home is much tougher to justify. Protecting life is OK - protecting property is not OK.

I think that difference is what makes the NO "shoot to kill" order a big deal since they could then shoot to protect property (though it sounds like they didn't). Normally police can only shoot to protect life.

<< SOAP BOX MODE ON >>

Please, if you have a gun in a home where there is even a remote chance of children being present, make sure the guns are stored unloaded and locked up (safe and/or trigger lock).

When your kids get old enough to show interest in guns - or even if they don't show an interest - please enroll them in a gun safety class. I had a friend in high school that blew a hole in his head while trying to clean a loaded gun. Just a bit of good training would have easily prevented his death. Guns in knowledable hands are really safe, but in the hands of the untrained they are very very dangerous.

<< SOAP BOX MODE OFF >>

You are entirely correct, for a majority of states. Once upon a time there was an intuder into my parents home - some 11 miles out of town - the Texas DPS Trooper told her, 'well, Betty you could have just killed the son of a [censored], after all he, he came in the house.' She said that she didn't want to mess up the carpet. She talked him down - with a gun in her hand.

The point I am trying to make is that. 99% of the population of the USA has not been trained in self defense. IMHO women as well as most men would pull the trigger on pepper spray immediately and without hesitation and that in it’s self could save a life. People with morals would probably hesitate in pulling the trigger “just to make sure”. If you have to make sure….I would rather shoot first with pepper spray and run to avoid the potential consequences. Mind you this was originally started based on a potential NOLA situation. Keeping it in that context I would use pepper spray first. If the country is devastated and you corner me, my sister or most likely anyone I really believe would shoot first and ask questions later.

To the point: Most people will have no hesitation using pepper spray in an NOLA situation. No hesitation means a much better chance of getting away. In the event you can’t get away than as I said Shoot!!!

Please see my previous post to see my personal feelings on the warning shot. I learned a lot from that post and have given it deep consideration and yes I would handle the situation differently. Was the warning shot the equivalent of pepper spray?

On Equipped use the Search button for “did I faux pas” for my discharging a fire arm at people situation.

Cameron

> it's not the rational part of your brain that going to stop you from pulling the trigger. It's a deeper
> part more "primitive" part of the brain that stops you from killing another person.

There was a C4 documentary about this: The Truth About Killing which makes interesting reading. However, I gather the studies are controversial. See for example, S.L.A. Marshall and the Ratio of Fire.

I doubt you can really tell in advance how someone would react. The idea that people can be divided into sheep, wolves and sheepdogs, in advance, is probably simplistic, and I suspect that the same person might act as sheep on one occasion and sheep dog on another (and wolf on yet another). It partly depends on the situation and on what other people are doing.

S.L.A. Marshall's study on soldiers' ability to fire on the enemy is from WWII and had been widely quoted. The "study", however was found to to be fraudulant and is now dismissed.
More recent studies from Nam indicate a large majority of troops in combat used their weapons. Many only did the "spray and pray" routine, but at least rounds went down range.
Information from the Gulf and Iraq wars indicated a larger percentage of troops are effective with their individual weapons.

A L.E.O. friend of mine who has been engaged in several shoot-outs (and killed several people) advised me, over a couple beers, that no matter how much training you have, or what you think is your mindset, you're not going to know until it happens to you. And then, when it happens, you're not going to know what you're going to do the next time.

I've carried for twenty years, and keep a gun on the bedstand every night, but I still wonder what I'll do if it ever comes down to it.

A very very good gunsmith here, Greg Ferriss, had his shop in a nasty part of town. He shot and killied in two seperate incidents in robbery attempts. He moved. Greg shoots for center of mass.

I always found it incredibly stupid that they decided to try rob the best pistol-smith in town.

KenK,

Just wanted to elaborate a little on your point.

<< SOAP BOX MODE ON >>

I can understand your concern, and for those who choose to own firearms and not exercise due diligence with them with their families, I would say your advice may be the most relevent.

In my opinion, anyone who is going to own a firearm ought to take the time to make sure the whole family knows what they are about, how to use them, and get them intently involved in their upkeep and maintenance. I am not advocating that you hand your magnum over to your toddler and try and show him what it is all about. Rather, take the lad out to the range with you, have him witness you shooting the thing, put it where he can't get at it until he is old enough to get into just about anything in the house. Make him clean the thing. When he is big enough to hold onto it, have him shoot the thing (assisted if need be). As he gets older, make him use the thing regularly, even if just for target practice, cleaning it after every session.

We've had firearms in our society since it first began. 9 year old kids were required to go out and fetch dinner with them. They were kept loaded and ready to use by the front door or over the fireplace mantle, in easy access. Heck, folks were even expected to bring them to Sunday service every week.

When I was 5 years old, I was fascinated with Grandad's guns. One day he took me with him for target practice. He let me shoot his big 20 gauge shotgun. It hurt, both my shoulder and my ears. Afterwards he showed me how to clean it up, and we repeated this several times that summer. At the end of that time, I was no longer fascinated with them, and had quit asking to go shooting because it took too long to clean the guns up when we got back home before we could eat dinner. That was how I was raised. That is quite similar to how I raised my girls. I kept loaded guns in the house, not necessarily in plain view, but the girls always knew where at least a couple were kept easily accessible. They never had the gumption to do anything with them, and they never let any friends or family mess with them. They grew up to be good shooters and are becoming hunter education instructors for the state when they reach eligible age. My oldest is pursuing a career in law enforcement, my youngest intends to become an attorney (only if she gets those grades of hers up more).

That's just me. From a survival perspective, I can't see the point of owning a self defense firearm that I am not going to keep loaded. I also don't abide having a useful tool that my children are prohibited from using only because I haven't taken the time to properly train them on it. My hunting rifles and such need not be loaded and accessible. But by God, my pistols better be handy and ready to go, otherwise what's the point of even having one? If five generations have been able to do it, I reckon I shouldn't shirk the responsibility myself.

For the unprepared, I think your soapbox statement is absolutely on the money.

It would be interesting to see the expression on the face of an invader holding me unarmed at knife/gunpoint just after one of my daughters plugged him with my 45. Not something I would ever look forward to, but am prepared for.

FWIW, I too had a friend in jr high (we shared a locker together), who did the same. It was a tough day having to clean all his stuff out of the locker. The worst was knowing that what he'd done I could've prevented if I had been there that day with him. I always supervised my kids with all gun handling until they were old enough I could trust them with it(when they were old enough to drive, theywere old enough to handle other equally dangerous tools). My friend was not old enough, and should not have been allowed independent manipulation with any firearm.

<< SOAP BOX MODE OFF >>

Also, the statement that using pepper spray may avoid the loss of life; logically, the use of pepper spray may evoke an otherwise avoidable lethal attack in retribution. Actively defending against an attack can escalate the confrontation as often as diffuse it, regardless of the non-lethal methods used.

Well, I don't have a little sister, but I do have a wife that doesn't particularly like guns a lot, but does understand the need.

I didn't post this here because of the increased sensitivity here on ETS in recent months about guns and the lets be more friendly to all the outsiders that come along. A good policy I believe, but things can get out of hand in both directions. Anyway, I digress.

My wife is currently in her 3rd year of law school and in the spring there was a contest sponsored by the second amendment society. She decided to enter and ended up winning the contest. The paper discusses why going against the right to carry is a violation of gender equality.

I got her permission to post the paper on line after receiving a lot of requests to read it.

It is about 8 pages total. Link as follows if you are interested.

http://www.jerzeedevil.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3665

On that forum I go by Vinosaur (nickname from my Navy days). Only thing left out are the footnotes.

Excellent article/paper.

I well give that link to a few closed minds with big mouths that I know.

I am a little sister to a big sister, as well as a big sister to a little brother.

I believe that women are just as likely and capable to pull a trigger without hesitation as men. I think that most of them just don't know what they'd do, and would rather not fathom it, until it happens to them.

Sitting comfortably in my home, with no danger in sight, even I worry about the moral consequences if I shot and killed someone. But there was a time when a (presumably drunk) young male stranger tried to forcibly enter my dorm room at college, and I brandished the only weapon I had (my EDC knife) while yelling and screaming for attention after only the slightest hesitation. What caused that hesitation? It wasn't concern of the ramifications of my soul if I stabbed the guy in self defense, it was plain FEAR that this was my only time to react and was I strong and fast enough?

Looking back on it, I feel a little bad that I was so quick to maim another human being (even though I had the "Don't Mess With Me" reputation among my friends), especially since he "sobered up" real fast when he got my reaction, and I was unhurt. But during the actual situation, and others afterward, my capacity for that shame went out the window. I don't know how different I am from other women, but I believe we are all capable of a similar response.

I think that when a peacable woman can recognize that capacity in herself, and let it switch on freely when needed, the better she is at protecting herself and others.

In most cases I would have to agree with you on that point.
Especially a mother protecting her children.

A good point all people who carry tools should soberly consider is hereI'm scared but I don't really want to hurt him...

I think we all should print it out and give a copy to our " little sisters".

benjammin, one of the best posts I've read, ever. Congrats.

CJK,


Probably a good tool in the toolbox of those who can't go with a gun. Still, pain compliance in general has great limitations, this one is a good example:
Lies, dammned lies and the Myotron

.

Let me back up and just say this.....I believe in the right to keep and bear arms....I believe in the right to use force (lethal if necessary) to protect oneself. I will not be using LTL items to defend from lethal force. I was just suggesting that for those people who CAN'T or WON'T use lethal force...the taser is an option.

I did a bit of research and came up with this:

I have a 225g can of Bear Pause, contents 0.98% Capsaicin;

I have a 22 g can of Black Max Dog Repellent , contents 5% Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) & 0.5% Capsaicin

Fox Labs International web site states: 2% OC & 5% OC

According to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

web page

the Scoville rating for Capsaicin can be as high as 16 000 000
whereas for OC it will reach 5 300 000

So the bear spray would indeed be very nasty if used on a human.

“In large quantities, capsaicin can be a lethal poison. Symptoms of overdose include difficulty breathing, blue skin, and convulsions.” Wikipedia It is not clear however if this can occur from inhalation .