Originally Posted By: Michael2

- Suppose bear spray was extremely expensive and canisters were rented with a big deposit against their use?

Of course, if it's too expensive for you to own it, it will not be effective for you (since it's sitting on a store shelf, out of your financial reach)

- Suppose the act of carrying bear spray increased the confidence of people carrying it, and caused them to unwisely enter situations they shouldn't?

Of course, if you're an idiot lots of things won't be effective for you. That's like saying SCUBA gear isn't effective because some moron buys some, then goes on a solo cave dive as his first dive, without any dive training - and dies as a result of that.

- Suppose there were severe laws against unleashing bear spray against a bear unless it was actually attacking?

Of course, if you can't even use the stuff because it's illegal (and you care about obeying the laws) it won't be effective for you.

- Suppose bear spray didn't come with instructions on how to use it?

Of course, if you can't figure out how to use it it won't be effective for you.

- Suppose bear spray didn't come with a holster or clip and the only way to carry it was in hand or in a pack?

Of course, if you can't access it when you need it it won't be effective for you.

- Suppose bear spray was so difficult to aim that only an expert could effectively use it?

Of course, if you can't come close to hitting your target with it it won't be effective for you.

None of these obvious conclusions really require a research study.

The reported study was regarding if bear spray/firearms were effective against bears, not if they were practical.

If any of the above conditions apply to you, I would say that bear spray is not practical for you. Likewise, if you have never handled, fired, been trained, or practiced with a handgun I would say a handgun is not practical for you. These items could still be very effective in competent hands, just not in yours. ("you" and "yours" are being used here generically, not specifically pointing to anybody in particular)

I would agree though, that if the study were about defense against humans and not bears, then other considerations beyond "shot being fired" are of importance. The mere presence of a handgun may be enough to warn a human attacker off (and it often is). However, I don't think a bear cares one way the other if you brandish your handgun, so this usage can be safely ignored when talking about bears.