It seems to me the big point of Smith's research is not that you shouldn't carry in bear country, but that other factors matter more to keep you safe.

For firearm usage, his research seems to indicate a pretty sharp divide in effectiveness between people who can perform well under high stress and people who are not used to it. Also, I do think it's quite interesting that handguns are more successful than the more powerful long guns in defending against bears, according to his research. I would have expected the opposite.



You're saying that if you happen to the the unlucky one person, would you want to have a gun, right? What's motivated you to think about this, when what Smith is arguing is that there's little statistical difference between using and not using firearms in bear encounters? What you're thinking is "at least I'll have a fighting chance if I had a gun." Smith's research indicates that your chances aren't any better. You may still want to have a gun, perhaps because when the bear attacks you, you'll feel confident rather than helpless. This has to do with psychology than practicality. If SHTF, maybe you will be the small number of exceptions that manage to get off a well-placed shot. (And I hope you'll be able to pull this off.) Maybe you'll die trying to do that. (I hope not.) It's your prerogative to choose which path to go, not mine.

Again, I don't think this study says to disarm. Rather, it highlights the more crucial safety practices, and suggests that if you want to carry, carry a pistol and get ready for the difficulties of shooting a 500 lb charging animal.

It also says you'l have to fill out quite a bit of paperwork if you kill a bear in self defense. So pack a pen, too.

My only agenda here is to get people to understand what the research says (according to the news articles anyway). I have no inherent interest one way or the other about carrying in bear country.