Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
You’re odd.
It doesn’t even sound like you read it. You didn’t know what the injury rate was referring to, you don’t seem to know what conclusion they’re making, and the thing you’re basing your argument on is the thing in the study is the same thing they say their study likely has wrong due to incomplete data lol.
|
I did read it. It says what I am saying: that bear attacks where guns were employed for defence had the same rate of injuuries as where they weren't.
And disparaging it because they included 1883 data (and why wouldn't they) is just off. It's like calling a 2023 study on climate change an 1850 study if it includes the first temperature data.