Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
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.
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.
|
5 academics, including Herrero (arguably the world's foremost expert in this field, though that might apply to some of the other authors, too) devoted hours to this and felt confident to publish.
Every study in the history of studies has caveats. But we'll take your word for it that these caveats invalidate this particular study because you want it to.
These events are rare. Having reliable eye witness accounts is even more rare, especially when the outcome is human death. Any media report is flawed...we're lacking details in 2023, just as the 1883 article likely did. But if you analyze the data honestly and consistently you can still draw relevant conclusions.
And you can make the same argument about the bear spray related incidents (that study cited was from one of these same authors) - there would be just as many non-reported non-injury incidents.
IMO the most important line in study is this:
Quote:
|
Our findings suggest that only those proficient in firearms use should rely on them for protection in bear country.
|
We can certainly debate the definition of 'proficiency', but there is plenty of literature to suggest proficiency rates may not be terribly high among gun owners. And this line does nothing to suggest it is the 'best' tool, but it is only a possibly effective tool for a small segment of the population.
It's interesting that some here who would describe themselves as gun-proficient also describe bear spray as an overly complex and difficult tool to implement...and I'd strongly disagree. Anybody can look at a bottle for 10 seconds and understand the general process. Watch a youtube video for specific tips. Try an expired/practice can once and you're certainly achieved proficiency, if not borderline mastery.