"Longtime bear biologist Tom Smith and colleagues analyzed
269 incidents of
close-quarter bear-human conflict in Alaska between 1883 and 2009
in which a firearm was involved.
They found the gun made no statistical difference in the outcome of these encounters, which resulted in 151 human injuries and 172 bear fatalities."
I'm not a scientist or a bear expert, but I find flaws in both your reasoning and the statement in the article.
The study was of 269 incidents where the human was armed with a firearm. Out of 269 incidents, they tallied 151 human injuries and 172 bear fatalities.
From that, he and you draw the conclusion that firearms made no difference in the outcome.
A scientific study would have included (at least) groups of armed and unarmed encounters. But then, attempting to study the "unarmed encounters" may leave you frustrated at the difficulty in locating witnesses. There are the occasional findings of finger bones in bear scat that could bear (npi) witness, I suppose.
Let's see, I would guess that if there were no firearms involved that there would have been NO bear fatalities and the outcome would have been leaning toward: Bears: 269, Humans: 0. Does that make sense?
172 bear deaths in a study of 269 cases where there would have been NO bear deaths without firearms is called "no statistical difference in the outcome of these encounters". ? ? ! ! ! Really?
Does the biologist have his own agenda?? There were NO deaths of humans mentioned. How many deaths of humans would there have been without the firearm available?
Firearms used to be called "Equalizers" for a reason. They give you a chance, but you must have the training, knowledge, discipline and ability to use them correctly.