[quote name='The Crotch']Heh. You say that you can hold your own in an argument, Morph, but you forgot to give me something to argue against. I don't see anything in your post I disagree with at all. With a hungry, aggressive brown bear, you either have a means of intimidating it, killing it (and about the only option there is indeed a gun or guns), or you're

ed.[/QUOTE]
Oh, I understand that. Glad to hear you confirm it. But that's why I didn't respond to your original post. It didn't sound so balanced of a post. And I really didn't want to argue over such a dumb subject (over the internet, no less).
[quote name='docvinh']What kind of guns are you guys carrying in the woods to take down a damn bear? I heard desert eagle being bandied about, are people actually carrying that monstrosity around?[/QUOTE]
While there have been reports of grizzlies being brought down by a single shot from a .22, I'm not sure I believe it and I'm certainly not sure I would rely on it being a defense. Most likely you would tick the beast off more.
Like I said before, a .357 or even a .44 wouldn't be hard to lug and are rather economical options. Make sure it's hollow point, whatever you use. If you're a gun enthusiast and have money to burn and want to lug a heavy-a* "handgun" around, the Desert Eagle .50AE is marvelous. I would go with a modifiable DE that can have parts swapped to fire .357, .44 or .50. The .50 rounds are around $40-$50 for 20 rounds I believe. So being able to primarily use smaller caliber rounds is a benefit.
I wouldn't personally recommend a shotgun though. Seems to me it could put a hole in a bear at close range, but who wants to wait till close range? Also, I think that would make it mad and it would still be able to fight for a while. [I want to use something that 1) puts a hole in the thing's head 2) shreds the brain instead of exiting clean.] At far range, it's going to be a bunch of buck shot pelting him over a wide area. He/she will run from you chucking rocks because that's freakin' annoying. But a bunch of spread out bb's pelting him are going to sting like a mother and you are going to turn from pest to threat and if a bear has the wrong temperament, you've probably invited a charge. Stupid. Get something that will drop the beast and only use it if you have to.
BTW, my earlier post was done while I was tired. I just re-read it. I don't know what I was thinking when I said I was almost trampled by a white tail buck. It was a mule deer. A lot different...
EDIT:
[quote name='Drclaw411']why did they kill the bears? not to sound insensitive, but it's not like they were eating her to be evil. only reason to make sense to kill them is if there was reason to believe they were rogue animals (animals that knowingly prefer to hunt humans rather than their natural food), which is possible.[/QUOTE]
Protip: Read the thread.
This has been answered numerous times. Of course bears aren't evil. You make it sound like they were killed out vengeance, which is ridiculous.
[quote name='MorPhiend'][quote name='Soodmeg']Is this really true? I have almost wondered what the hell the reasoning for this was.[/QUOTE]
Yes. There are two issues at hand when any animal (especially carnivorous/omnivorous) kills a human. 1) They learn that they don't need to be afraid of humans (pretty much all wild animals are by instinct) and 2) if necessary, humans make for a possible food supply. And #1 leads to more of #2. So once an animal has killed a human, for the future safety of people, the majority of the time they need to be put down. It has nothing to do with vengeance or anything stupid like that.[/QUOTE]
EDIT2:
And someone mentioned a recent bear attack and someone suggested they were thinking of one where the story was retracted. I don't know, I was thinking about this story:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/08/polar-bear-attack-investigation-begins