Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
No, you are misreading that:
In similar study on firearms (Smith et. al. 2012), they were effective 84% with handguns and 76% with rifles to stop bears from undesirable behavior. The study analyzed 269 bear-human conflicts in Alaska from 1883-2009.
This was a 2012 study. The data used in the study was from 1883-2009.
|
I see your confusion. I’m aware of when the study was done, I was using 1883 Alaska as short hand to refer to the study because it uses data from 1883 and Alaska, which are both unique things so you’d know exactly what study I was talking about (or so I thought).
So, now that we have confirmed we are referring to the same study, you should actually read that study because you’ve misunderstood the rate of injury data. It’s not unarmed vs armed, it’s armed and used their gun vs. armed and didn’t use their gun. That, plus the study lays out a whole bunch of caveats as to why the success rate of firearms is probably higher than what they have calculated, and why the injury rate is likely correspondingly lower.