Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
Is this some sort of sarcastic parody? Usually you will at least look at evidence
|
Um, rude. I did look at the evidence and that's exactly what it says.
Quote:
Moreover, firearm bearers suffered the same injury rates in close encounters with bears whether they used their firearms or not.
...
Success rates by firearm type were similar with 84% of handgun users (31 of 37) and 76% of long gun users (134 of 176) successfully defending themselves from aggressive bears (Z 1⁄4 1.0664, P 1⁄4 0.2862). When we compared outcomes for people who used their firearm in an aggressive bear encounter (n 1⁄4 229) to those who had firearms but did not use them (n 1⁄4 40), we found no difference in the outcome (G2 1⁄4 0.691, P 1⁄4 0.708), whether the outcome was no injury, injury, or fatality. However, we found a difference in the outcome for bears with regard to firearm use: 172 bears died when people used their firearms, whereas no bears were killed when firearms were not used.
|
It's also worth noting that this study admits that, based on the way bear-human conflicts are reported, they are likely missing data that would increase the success rate of firearms without increasing the number of human injuries reported:
Quote:
|
Therefore, even if more incidents had been made available through the Alaska DLP database, we anticipate that these would have contributed few, if any, additional human injuries. Second, including more DLP records would have increased the number of bears killed by firearms. Finally, additional records would have likely improved firearm success rates from those reported here, but to what extent is unknown.
|
Worth noting that even with these limitations, the success rate for handguns was 84%, while the success rate for bearspray is 90%, a negligible difference according to the study.