Bear Pepper Spray

[66788]

I often hear people say that it is against federal law to use bear spray on people or to use wasp spray on people. Wrapping a crowbar around someone's head is against federal law, too, but it is legal when used in a self defense situation. Same thing with any other object. If I were about to be raped and had access to bear spray, I would spray the hell out of my attacker. I consider that legal.

Kinda depends on who the rapist was.

Would you spray Miss Universe?   :shy:

 

[Canine]

I wonder if he had bear spray?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...onal-park-authorities-say/?wprss=rss_homepage

Nope. I just read an article in the Great Falls Tribune and it said he didn't have spray.

Bears in Mexico probably prefer pepper spray. Or maybe the Mexicans have to make it extra strong so it has any effect; maybe they make it out of Guatemalan Insanity Peppers.

 

[66788]

Okay, let me try this another way!

For those of us for whom carrying a gun is either illegal or undesirable, let's take a good look at alternative means of safety.

If carrying a gun is off the table, what else is effective in specific situations?

Chainsaws and flamethrowers, but they are awkward to pack in your van.

 

[mockturtle]

Chainsaws and flamethrowers, but they are awkward to pack in your van.

 

Hand grenades might also be effective and don't take up as much space.

 

[Optimistic Paranoid]

Chainsaws and flamethrowers, but they are awkward to pack in your van.

Not to mention the fact that if you DO end up using a chainsaw, Hollywood will make a sleazy drive-in movie about the whole incident.

Plus you won't be happy with the "actor" who portrays you . . .

Regards
John

 

[66788]

Here's a video of a store employee in Canada using bear spray on a would be robber. Note it doesn't really slow the robber down much at all.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...obbery-with-bear-spray-and-spanking-1.1162896

 

[Van-Tramp]

An interesting quote from that article

But they [officers] said charges will not be laid against the clerk because the accused men did not complain.

So, the robbers could have complained (filed charges) against the clerk for using bear spray. They did not, probably to beg for mercy, but this could have just as easily ended up with the clerk in court (or jail) right beside the two robbers.

And to play devil's advocate, handguns rarely stop attackers immediately too. More often then not, an attacker can take multiple hits from a handgun and still finish killing you before he bleeds out. As an example, the kid who was killed by the Furgeson PD last year took seven hits (if memory serves me) before the 8th (head shot) finally dropped him.

 

[akrvbob]

That's a great video!!!! One of the few worth looking at!

I don't know, while it's true they didn't roll up on balls on the floor, they did appear to be blinded and helpless. The one just lashed out blindly but the clerk could easily handle him.

In the US it's hard to imagine any prosecutor would charge him no matter the law. Any defense attorney could plead the "reasonable man" defense and I can't imagine any US jury convicting him. They came after him with a knife and he responded with non-lethal force.

That clerk was a hero!
Bob
Bob

 

[66788]

And to play devil's advocate, handguns rarely stop attackers immediately too. More often then not, an attacker can take multiple hits from a handgun and still finish killing you before he bleeds out. As an example, the kid who was killed by the Furgeson PD last year took seven hits (if memory serves me) before the 8th (head shot) finally dropped him.

That's why the .45 ACP was invented.  Drugged up natives could not be stopped by conventional handguns of the day, but dropped like flies when hit with the Colt .45 ACP. (M1911)

 

[Canine]

Another quote:

"Gatineau police said it does not recommend confronting robbers, and instead recommends calling 911 and getting a good description of the suspects."

What that quote infers is they prefer that citizens don't defend themselves and prefer to leave that up to the police. I'm not sure I would just take notes while a couple of knife-wielding thug stab knives at me. Of course, you take a chance when you defend yourself, but you also take a chance when not resisting. 1 out of 12 robberies end up with non-resisting clerks receiving serious injury (broken bones, head trauma, rape, death). Are the odds better if you shoot? Not sure. The odds are better if you have a gun, though. You don't need to shoot.

There is a reason working in a convenience store is dangerous! I can't remember where I got the "1 out of 12" statistic, though.

But when you start shooting, who knows what will happen? Even if you take down those two, who knows how many more may be out there? It is a possibility your gun will jam. You may hit someone in the background. Every situation is different. I like to run away when I can. I never assume that my gun will always work, that I'm smarter, faster, more alert, etc., than my attacker(s).

Van-Tramp, you said, "And to play devil's advocate, handguns rarely stop attackers immediately too. More often then not, an attacker can take multiple hits from a handgun and still finish killing you before he bleeds out." That is statistically incorrect. Below is an authoritative link that shows the effectiveness of using a gun to defend oneself.

https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

However, you probably meant when you actually shoot. In this paragraph, I'll leave out how simply presenting a gun overwhelmingly stops more attacks than not. Incapacitation is more about placement or other factors: Is the attacker physically fit? On drugs? In a rage? Etc. Half of head shots of any caliber are one stop shots. 25% to 30% of any caliber take two shots to incapacitate. I couldn't find out how fast that incapacitation happened, though. Shooting someone isn't like TV. It isn't uncommon to think you haven't been shot, but find out later that you actually were shot by your attacker.

Shooting to stop a lethal threat is a serious matter. I just wanted to give a bit more info to help those of you who are interested in what the best way is to survive a lethal threat. I can't answer that; only you can.

 

[Optimistic Paranoid]

That's a great video!!!! One of the few worth looking at!

I don't know, while it's true they didn't roll up on balls on the floor, they did appear to be blinded and helpless. The one just lashed out blindly but the clerk could easily handle him.

A couple of take aways from this:

People who've never used pepper spray - or never been sprayed with it - seem to think that it is magic, and the assailants drop to the floor helpless until the cops arrive.  Instead, as we saw in this video, it messes them up enough to shift the odds in your favor, but you still have to be prepared to run, or grab a blunt object and beat the snot out of them.  Think of it as step one, and don't just stand there waiting for them to drop.  Have step two already in mind.

The story mentioned that he had been robbed 4 times already.  I am so tired of people who say they would never hurt someone just to protect material goods, that they can be replaced.

They never stop to think about the hard working small business owner who's been robbed multiple times, who can't get insurance to make good his losses, and who can end up unable to pay his bills and losing his business if he keeps getting robbed.  That wasn't just a few bucks in his cash register he was protecting, it was his livelihood and his family's future he was protecting.

Finally, I have been debating whether to take the Alaska Highway or the Alaska Ferry when I go to Alaska.

To those of you who've done the Alaska Highway, I have to ask:  Is there really any scenery there that's so spectacular that you just can't see anything like it in Alaska and the Rocky Mountains here in the US?

Cause, frankly, any place that would prosecute me for defending myself is not really a place I want to spend any time in.  And they certainly don't deserve any of my tourist dollars.  I'd rather scrape the extra money together and take the ferry.

Regards
John

 

[LeeRevell]

My take on the old "Call 9-1-1 and wait for the cops" gambit......

"When SECONDS count the cops are MINUTES away."

When you 'hope' the goblin doesn't hurt you and your family as he is robbing you, you place your trust in a violent criminal who may well be drugged up, and will be very angry if you don't have enough goody to satisfy him.  Violent criminals are not known for treating their victims well.  I place MY trust in my Colt .45  or my 12 gauge.  Not a 'sure thing' but the odds are more in MY favor.
But, we all make our own choices.
The basic concept of personal defense is to "STOP THE THREAT".  And that is what you tell 9-1-1 when you call them for clean-up , and the cops when they show up - "I shot to STOP THE THREAT!"

 

[johnny b]

That's why the .45 ACP was invented.  Drugged up natives could not be stopped by conventional handguns of the day, but dropped like flies when hit with the Colt .45 ACP. (M1911)

Not quite true but is generally accepted by most folks. Here is a short history:

"Commissioned officers and sergeants  carried side arms during the Philippine-American War and the Moro Campaigns. If you were in the U.S. military at any time from World War II up through the Vietnam War, chances are very good you were told the story of how officers carrying the standard issue Colt .38 caliber, double-action revolver, adopted by the Army in 1892, were simply not able to stop a charge by a kris-wielding Moro (or bolo-wielding Filipino either). As a result, so the story goes, the Army had Colt Manufacturing "invent" what would become the famous M1911 Colt .45 Semi-Automatic pistol. The story was usually ended giving the impression that it was this weapon's legendary stopping power that finally defeated the Moros.  There is little doubt the M1911 was a superb pistol, but as far as is known it was never used against the Moros by the US Army.
In 1903, the Army's Ordinance Bureau decided the solution would be to leapfrog to a new generation of pistol technology and purchased several hundred 9mm German Lugers which were sent to Zamboanga. But Army officers were quick to protest that the Luger was almost the same caliber as the .38 and provided almost no difference in performance. Despite pleading letters and reports dripping sarcasm from a succession of commanding generals beginning in 1900, Army ordinance focused instead on developing an entirely new, .45 caliber semi-automatic. The problem was it would take them eight years of development and ten years before it reached the Army in the Philippines. By that time, 1914, the Regular Army had withdrawn from Moroland. In the meantime Ordinance neglected to seriously address the immediate problem, which was left to individual units in the field to resolve.

   
[size=medium]Many older officers who had fought in the Indian Wars dusted off their old single-action Colt .45 "peacemakers", despite their inherent drawbacks. A readily available, although technologically dated solution was available in its successor, the 1878 Colt double-action .45 revolver. But Ordinance resisted dipping into their budget and bought only a limited number. Junior officers, who were often too low on the priority list, despite their greater need, were forced to either continue carrying the .38 or purchase them from their own pocket.  It was not until 1909 that Ordinance relented and standardized on a new (and excellent) revolver, Colt .45 double-action M1909. As far as can be determined, Regular Army units in the southern Philippines were not equipped with new M1911's until 1914, which was after their withdrawal from Moroland. Philippine Scout officers (who were Regular US Army officers on four-year term assignments), who were stationed in Zamboanga as a reserve to the Constabulary, continued to carry the M1909 revolver up until 1918. " [/size]

The 45 acp was developed to have the same basic ballistics as the highly effective 45 colt even though the brass case was much shorter and of the rimless variety for use in a semi-auto.

So the native Moro tribesman COULD be stopped with handguns of the day, firing the 45 colt cartridges....just not the weaker 38 caliber being issued.

BTW...the 45 colt cartridge is still available, now designated 45 LC (Long Colt).

 

[mockturtle]

Off topic but in answer to your questions:

Finally, I have been debating whether to take the Alaska Highway or the Alaska Ferry when I go to Alaska.

To those of you who've done the Alaska Highway, I have to ask:  Is there really any scenery there that's so spectacular that you just can't see anything like it in Alaska and the Rocky Mountains here in the US?

The Alaska Highway is OK.  I prefer the Cassiar.  I took the Alaska north and the Cassiar south.  The most spectacular scenery is in Alaska, itself so if you must take a ferry you won't miss the best.  Don't miss the Kenai Peninsula, Valdez and the Seward highway.  The Glenn Highway also has some spectacular scenery.  If you go through Canada from the east, you might want to take the Icefield Parkway between Banff & Jasper.  Very scenic all the way and lots of wildlife, too.  The Rockies in BC & AB are much more spectacular than those in Colorado. 

Here are a few photos I took, the first two from the Icefields Parkway and the others from Alaska.




http://s30.photobucket.com/user/prabson/media/Icefield Center_1.jpg.html





There is so much spectacular scenery in Alaska that you reach a saturation point.  Not possible to capture it in photos because you often have 360-degree panoramas.  And Alaska is a boondocker's paradise. 

 

[akrvbob]

Okay, no more gun talk on this thread. They will all be deleted.

The topic of stopping power is valid to the forum, but it needs it's own thread.
Bob

 

[akrvbob]

I'm going to allow the question of driving to Alaska or taking the ferry because it pertains to the topic of protection from bears.

Canada has many more bear fatalities than Alaska or the rest of the US. Last year when we drove it we saw many more bears right on the road in Canada than in Alaska--including a grizzly and cub right on the road.. It got so common we didn't even think about them--"Oh, there's another bear"

Here is a quote from this page:
http://www.backpacker.com/news-and-events/news/trail-news/ask-a-bear-how-many-bear-attacks-really-2/

In the 2000s, there have been 27 fatal incidences so far in North America, resulting in 29 deaths. 15 were in Canada, three were in Alaska, two were in Tennessee, and single fatal attacks happened in New York, New Mexico, California, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Utah and Montana. 17 of those attacks were perpetrated by black bears, and 10 by grizzlies. - See more at: http://www.backpacker.com/news-and-...y-bear-attacks-really-2/#sthash.amiLTSBu.dpuf

To answer your question, NO, the drive through Canada is nice, but not worth the time it takes. It pales in comparison to Alaska.

Like Mockturtle said, the Canadian Rockies are fabulous--at least as good as Alaska! But from them north, it's nothing special.

The Ferry costs a lot more! That's why I didn't do it.
Bob

 

[Optimistic Paranoid]

To answer your question, NO, the drive through Canada is nice, but not worth the time it takes. It pales in comparison to Alaska.

Like Mockturtle said, the Canadian Rockies are fabulous--at least as good as Alaska! But from them north, it's nothing special.

The Ferry costs a lot more! That's why I didn't do it.
Bob

Thank you.  Please feel free to move a couple of these last posts to their own thread if you want.  Might make it easier for others to find this info in the future.

I understand the ferry is the only way to get to places like Juneau and Glacier Bay and so on.  As an old Alaska hand, anything there that's a must-see?

Regards
John

 

[LeeRevell]

How about the Alaska Cruises?  Do they stop at any towns of interest long enough to look around ashore?

 

[mockturtle]

Lee, would you really want to see Alaska on one of these?

 

[Almost There]

Lee, would you really want to see Alaska on one of these?

I don't know about Lee, but I sure wouldn't!

I want to be able to doddle along, make plans set in jello and change my mind about where I'm headed next when something catches my interest.

The only thing that would interest me about that type of travel is being able to see the fjords and glaciers from the water.