Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
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.
|
Where they weren’t…
when the person still had a gun. They even list some of the reasons why people didn’t use the firearm, which included not wanting to dress the animal and haul it out. Do you think if someone has a gun and chooses not to use it because they don’t feel like dealing with the legal ramifications of killing a bear that they’re in a situation where it is required? Use an ounce of thought here lol.
I’m not disparaging it because it includes data from 1883, I’m noting the fact that it’s unique. It has nothing to do with climate change, which is an absurd comparison, because unlike “climate” variables like “firearms” have changed a fair bit in 150 years.
You clearly didn’t read it and are now going back trying to make it fit your point. You said “The rate of injuries for armed versus unarmed people who are attacked is the same” despite everyone in the study being armed, which is the entire basis of the study lol. Every “incident” they looked at included at least one person and at least one firearm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GioforPM
We encourage all persons with or without a firearm, to consider carrying a non-lethal
deterrent such as bear spray because its success rate under a
variety of situations has been greater (i.e., 90% successful for
all 3 North American species of bear; Smith et al. 2008) than
those we observed for firearms.
Seems like they have pretty decent confidence. And they never say "our study is likley wrong". They caveat it.
https://westernwildlife.org/wp-conte...-Deterrent.pdf
|
Caveat by saying the data they don’t have would likely decrease the injury rate and increase the success rate of firearm/bear interactions, but they don’t know how much by.
You’re smart enough to know how to ready and interpret a study, so I’m not sure why you’re being weird about this one. Your entire argument isn’t wrong just because this study is a bit weak, but pretending it’s iron clad because you desperately need to be right is odd. It’s a study that includes unofficial accounts like newspaper clippings from 1883 leaves out a bunch of data that they admit would change the numbers. It’s OK to recognize that.