>>1299249>>1299248And what's your argument then?
That this specific study is conveniently invalid because it doesn't support your claim?
How about we skim over a study from a different source considering firearms then.
>Bears were killed in 61% (n=162) of bear–firearms incidents. © 2012 The Wildlife Society. Oh man oh man, those are pretty fucking poor odds.
Randomly calling a study false is not an argument.