As I mentioned a bit earlier on in this thread, the
only study I've heard about found that bear spray was effective at stopping aggressive bear behaviour in 92 percent of cases while firearms were effective in 67 percent of cases.
This was a study of 20 years worth of bear encounters in Alaska; the bears involved were mostly (70%) grizzlies with the remainder being blacks (there were with a couple polar bear incidents included in the study too).
I think what we have here is an example of random stats being pulled out of the sky. Here is the original study:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2193/2006-452/abstractThe study does not analyze guns used in bear attacks, but the CBC article goes ahead and pulls 67% out of nowhere. I guess we're supposed to take that as the truth. I don't. Anyway, what does 67% mean? What type of gun is each person using? Are they including warning shots in that 67%? There are too many unknowns.
Further, check the source. CBC is a Canadian news source. Canada is overall anti-gun, just like Britain. I don't trust any study coming out of Canada or Britain that's related to using guns for self-defense. In Britain, it's basically illegal to use a gun to defend yourself against an attacker who intends to kill you. That's a warped mindset that completely disregards the natural right of self-defense.
Previous Topic
Index
