Quoted By:
Lets get down to debunking this stupid ass study you keep on touting as the end all be all. I mean, in the very first paragraph of the main body there’s a glaring problem,
>We compiled information on bear attacks from readily accessible
state and federal records, newspaper accounts, books, and anecdotal information that spanned the years 1883– 2009.
See "readily accessible" and the term "Anecdotal evidence", Wow I didnt know that anecdotes were scientific data, but lets go on.
The study accounts for a total of 43 variables, none of which show anything close to bear spray, and you keep saying "It accounts for the kind of firearms used" No, it dosent, it classifies them as longgun handgun, both, or unknown. Which over about 140 years means the accounting for firearms type is basically nil in practice since a civil war era musket is in the same category as a machine gun. A black powder single shot handgun is in the same category as a SW500. And Im not just saying this to make a point, there are cases described within the scope of that study, in Alaska hat may or may not be referenced that have used those guns. The study also dosent consider time or the year it occurred to be a variable, AT ALL.
So obviously some cherry-picking was used considering they even considered anecdotes in this study. In fact they say as much verbatim.
>"To overcome problems associated with missing or unclear information, we limited the contributions of each record"
>"The review process was subjective"
So they couldve just picked anything they want, but lets go on.
Continued
