Debunking the "8% forgot to take off the safety" in Bear Attacks Myth

Gun Watch ^ | 16 October, 2016 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

If you have been reading about defensive uses of firearms against bears, you have likely read that bear spray is more effective than firearms, and that a large percentage of people faced with bear attacks failed to disengage the safety.  Both are based on a highly flawed study.

In a discussion at The Truth About Guns, a commenter, writing about the subject thought that a high percentage, maybe 20%, of defenders, failed to take off the safety.  The commenter did some research, found the study by Tom Smith and Stephen Herroro and others, and corrected the number to "8 percent of people who faced a bear failed to disengage the safety".

I read the paper.  It is easy to misunderstand the numbers.  The number of people who failed to disengage the safety are much, much smaller, less than 2 percent.  The total number of firearm users in the study were 215.  That means four people out of 215 failed to disengage the safety on the firearm that they had.  About the same number (5) missed the bear.

The reason for the misunderstanding is clear, if you read the study carefully.  The eight percent is the percentage of the people with guns who failed to stop the bear or bears, not the percentage of people who tried to stop the bear or bears.

The overall percentage of people who successfully stopped the bear with a gun was a bit over 76 percent.  When only handguns were considered, the percentage was just short of 84%!  That is correct.  The study found handguns to be more effective than long guns.

If you are starting to wonder what is going on in this study, you are not alone.

The study has numerous flaws, the most glaring being that incidents where injuries to humans occurred were highly oversampled.  There was a strong selection bias toward incidents where firearms failed.  From the study:

Finally, additional records would have likely improved firearm success rates from those reported here, but to what extent is unknown.

This study is widely reported in the media to claim that firearms are not as effective as bear spray for protection against bear attack. 

The study is mildly interesting.  It is not persuasive science.  I am not going to go into all the flaws in this study.  It has been done.  One of the things that stands out is that a previous study, Human Injuries from Bears in Alaska, shows completely different results.

That study examined over a thousand Defense of Life and Property reports in Alaska from 1986 to 1996.  Only 2 percent of these incidents resulted in any injury to the people involved. That study was not mentioned in the bear attack study done by Tom Smith and Stephen Herrero.

Then next time you read "8% forgot to take off the safety", realize that it is a misunderstanding of the numbers. 

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch 

[marktwain]

84% success rate for handguns is pretty good, considering.

[dp0622]

I’m for the human every time but hate to see bears get killed for non hunting purposes.

Beautiful animals.

Deadly as hell, but beautiful.

If only they understood what a gun was :)

[DesertRhino]

I am very doubtful of a study that finds any handgun more effective at bear defense than a hunting rifle. Looks more like apologetics than a legitimate study.

[Fai Mao]

If they are concerned about a safety then carry a revolver

[Hugin]

Long guns can be set down, especially when gutting and skinning the animal. Likely they couldn’t get to and aim a long gun in time. Also a long gun could be a 22 or a shotgun with birdshot. A pistol is probably going to be a large caliber bullet.

[NRx]

If you are hunting bears then a long gun is your best bet. But if you are just carrying something for personal protection with bears being one of a number of potential threats, you probably are going to want a handgun. Remember that in close quarters a rifle or shotgun is not necessarily the optimal choice. This is especially true if you are taken by surprise.

If I were hiking/camping in the wild, especially in bear/big cat country, I’d probably opt for a good revolver chambered in .357 magnum. It may not be a hunting rifle or 12 gauge shotgun, but there is a hell of a lot of knockdown power in a judiciously loaded .357 (+ no safety). And they are a lot more convenient for carrying.

[Williams]

The bears move rapidly and it’s easier to discharge a handgun once the bear is at close quarters.

[cork]

Glock model 20, 10mm. Problem solved

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

I had a brother-in-law, hunting elk with bow, bring down a charging bear with his bow...arrow entered just below the bears head. He had a bear skin rug made, and it was without blemish.

[AndyTheBear]

What’s all this about shooting bears??

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

Glock model 20, 10mm. Problem solved

I like my XD-45, with a full magazine and one in the chamber.

[cpdiii]

Semi Automatic
Double Action
Cartridge in the tube.

It will not go off unless you pull the trigger. It will go off if you have the safety off.

After 14 shots and the bear is not down you have three options.

Option 1. “Mr. Bear can we be friends” He is already pissed off.
Option 2. Can I run faster than you Mr Bear? You cant.
Option 3. He will probably eat you but if lucky only a few parts and you might survive.

Safeties are great on the firing range. They suck in real life. That is the reason that cops carry Glocks and people that carry 1911s carry with the safety off. It has a built in safety in the handle. It will not go bang unless you are griping the handle firmly in a shooting situation.

All bears disagree with my post.

[cpdiii]

I am very doubtful of a study that finds any handgun more effective at bear defense than a hunting rifle. Looks more like apologetics than a legitimate study.

I would never go into "bear countuy" with less than a 30;06 rifle. It would just be stupid.

My father commanded a group of chopper pilots (civilian) back in the early sixties in Northern Canada. They were building the DEW Line early warning system. One of his choppers had engine trouble and they radioed that they were setting down. They never called in again. When they went out to look for them they found the chopper and remains of the pilot and passenger. It appeared that they were outside working on the engine when attacked. Polar bears killed them. They tracked them down from the air and killed the bears.

[Cen-Tejas]

I carry both a .50 cal and a Remington 870 loaded with 3 inch Magnum 000.

I’m in bear country on the Yukon ALONE
every summer for a month.

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

Well, I’ll stick witrh my Ruger 44 mag.

[ThunderSleeps]

The few times I’ve camped in an area where bears were a real possibility I took the largest handgun I have. A full size 1911 in 45 cal. I put FMJ in it and loaded every mag I have.

[Disambiguator]

Glock model 20, 10mm. Problem solved

A large-caliber double action revolver works too. Plus you can get some more serious chamberings, like .454 Casull. The Ruger Alaskan comes to mind.

[Big Red Badger]

I’ve looked all over Wheelguns,,,
No Safety,,,WTH?

[NRx]

The safety on a revolver is the trigger. Keep your finger off it unless/until you are ready to fire it.

[NRx]

“After 14 shots and the bear is not down you have three options...”

If you are being attacked by a bear, you are not likely to have the chance to get off 14 shots. Bears can move insanely fast. In most cases you will be lucky to get off two or three rounds. If you don’t drop or drive off the bear with those first few shots you better hope your affairs are in order.