How does it prove that? It doesn't prove or say anything about spray. It's just a collection of gun anecdotes. In the article, guys get mauled, get off shots before or after being mauled, or their buddy kills the bear while they're being mauled. The article proves nothing other than that sometimes you can kill a bear with a gun. How is being mauled a gun success. Maybe none of them would have been mauled at all if they were walking with spray in their hand.

The only meaningful stat to me, is whether spray will cause bears to back up.

Because I have carried handguns, shotguns, and spray. And I *know* spray can be deployed faster and with more certainty than a gun. You can dangle spray on your finger like car keys as you walk. You can't keep a gun in hand while you walk ten miles. And even if a bear crashes through brush from 6' away and lands on you, if you squeeze the spray you might gas yourself but you'll gas him too. With a gun, you won't get off a shot, and probably won't be able reach the gun while being mauled.

The problem with guns is that they are harder to carry, slower to deploy, and difficult to make a solid hit on a speeding bear at close range.

BUT if you have spray ready to deploy instantly, and it causes the bear to back up and regroup, then the spray has *bought you the time to use your gun effectively."

I would carry spray specifically to buy space and time to use a gun. And stats show that after using the spray the gun probably won't be necessary.