>>2174279no offense to "ammoland" but this more rigourous study had different results.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c13e2e48f51309499864d1d/t/5cae42fbeef1a10d92b12d77/1554924284110/Efficacy_of_Firearms_for_Bear_Deterrence.pdfABSTRACT We compiled, summarized, and reviewed 269 incidents of bear–human conflict involving
firearms that occurred in Alaska during 1883–2009. Encounters involving brown bears (Ursus arctos;
218 incidents, 81%), black bears (Ursus americanus; 30 incidents, 11%), polar bears (Ursus maritimus;
6 incidents, 2%), and 15 (6%) unidentified species provided insight into firearms success and failure. A
total of 444 people and at least 367 bears were involved in these incidents. We found no significant difference
in success rates (i.e., success being when the bear was stopped in its aggressive behavior) associated with long
guns (76%) and handguns (84%). Moreover, firearm bearers suffered the same injury rates in close encounters
with bears whether they used their firearms or not. Bears were killed in 61% (n ¼ 162) of bear–firearms
incidents. Additionally, we identified multiple reasons for firearms failing to stop an aggressive bear. Using
logistic regression, the best model for predicting a successful outcome for firearm users included species and
cohort of bear, human activity at time of encounter, whether or not the bear charged, and if fish or game meat
was present. Firearm variables (e.g., type of gun, number of shots) were not useful in predicting outcomes in
bear–firearms incidents. Although firearms have failed to protect some users, they are the only deterrent that
can lethally stop an aggressive bear. Where firearms have failed to protect people, we identified contributing
causes. Our findings suggest that only those proficient in firearms use should rely on them for protection in
bear country.
Guns are certainly useful but no sure thing.
