>>1024074You keep saying that people will hurt themselves or are more at risk when using guns, but In the study the authors readily admit that in many of the incidents they did include, people just didnt use them in 21% of the cases. and in all of the cases considered, only in 1% of cases using the firearm caused the bear to be agitated and caused it to charge, and only 8% of all those cases they subjectively picked people used the gun incorrectly or “messed up under pressure”.
You keep saying that the study found that no difference in incidents where people used guns versus not using guns, but you cant draw that comparison since the sample size of the people using guns was THE ENTIRE STUDY of over 444 while the sample size of people not using guns was 40. The sample size of people not using them is less than the number of people who had bad experiences when facing down a bear and using them!!! In fact its about half. That’s amazing.
You also keep tossing around the number that 56% of people were injured in the study when using guns, that’s also literally the opposite of what the study say, only 23% of people were actually injured in the study, and only 12% were injured fatally.
> Bear-inflicted injuries occurred in 151 of 269 (56%) incidents. Of the 444 people involved in firearms incidents, 122 (28%) were injured, 15 (12%) were fatally injured.Really makes you think.
At the end of the study, it actually says firearms were generally successful at stopping bears. But even they acknowledge this study shouldn’t be used as advice on bear defense on forums on the internet by huge faggots like you.
>Although firearms were successful (84% handgun; 76% long gun) in deterring aggressive bears in the records we studied, we do not claim that these rates represent the outcome for all bear–firearm incidents throughout Alaska or elsewhere. 