Bias in Studies of the Efficacy of Firearms in Bear Attacks

AmmoLand ^ | April 25, 2024 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

Attempting to quantify the effectiveness of defensive methods for use against bears suffers from significant selection bias. It is impractical to enlist large numbers of volunteers, randomly select half, give half a method of protection, leave the others as a control group, and place both in equal chances of being attacked. Instead, we rely on gathering data from people who were attacked and who had various types of defensive weapons. Obtaining a valid sample is nearly impossible because successful defenses have a strong bias of not being reported. The more spectacularly a defense fails, the more likely it is to come to the media’s attention and make headlines. It will be collected when people search for “bear attacks.” Researchers collecting data may exhibit bias in selecting what incidents to include.

In the most famous of the firearms and bear studies, “Efficacy of Firearms for Bear Deterrence in Alaska” (1883 to 2009), the purpose was not to determine how effective firearms are in defense against bears. It was to find ways in which firearms did not work in defense against bears. From an interview with Tom Smith by Wes Siler in Outside Online:

The point of “Efficacy of Firearms” wasn’t to arrive at a conclusion on whether or not firearms work but, rather, to analyze the reasons why they didn’t—“poor aim, no time to use them, jammed, etc.,” elaborates Smith.

When you are looking for ways in which firearms do not work, you will tend to find more of them. In “Efficacy of Firearms,” Tom Smith and Stephen Herrero openly admit their selection bias.

Therefore, even if more incidents had been made available through the Alaska DLP database, we anticipate that these would have contributed few, if any, additional human injuries.

[cowboyusa]

Winne the Pooh believes in the second Ammendment. He carries a gun.

[marktwain]

My experience is several encounters with black bears. They huff and bluff but when yelled at or pots are beaten, back off.

The Tennessee bears I encountered though wild, have experience with humans and just want the goodie in your pack

Most bears avoid humans. The few who decide to take on the humans should be taken out of the gene pool.

In short order, bears become respectful.

[marktwain]

It is too easy to make generalizations about bears. In the east, black bears are less aggressive and are more used to people. In certain regions of Alaska and British columbia one may encounter the predatory black bear. The last thing you see is a black blur coming out of the woods at the speed of a horse.

I believe you are mistaken. Predatory black bears usually approach with considerable caution. They are uncertain of humans as prey, so they take their time to evaluate the prey and "test" it to be sure it is not dangerous.

They close in on the person like a cat closing in on a bird. People almost always see them coming and have plenty of time to prepare for it, which very often ends with the bear being killed.

Here are cases of two geologists who were stalked by predatory black bears in Alaska. One did not have a gun and was terribly mauled, losing both arms (bears are not quick killers). The other had a gun and killed the bear as it attempted to close with her. She remembered what happened to her colleague.

[Big Red Badger]

Two Geologists....
.
Good Stuff,Dean.

[marktwain]

Where did you find it was a .38? I watched the video, and I understood it was a revolver. Did I miss the caliber in there somewhere?

[marktwain]

Is there anyway to tell how many of those situations were because of the lack of time to deploy the firearm? Same is true of bear spray. It seems that would have to count as a fail for either defensive tool if the bear is on the person so fast that there is no time of deploy.

From the Smith & Herrero paper:

Firearms failed to protect people for a variety of reasons including lack of time to respond to the bear (27%), did not use the firearm (21%), mechanical issues (i.e., jamming; 14%), the proximity to bear was too close for deployment (9%), the shooter missed the bear (9%), the gun was emptied and could not be reloaded (8%), the safety mechanism was engaged and the person was unable to unlock it in time to use the gun (8%), people tripped and fell while trying to shoot the bear (3%), and the firearm’s discharge reportedly trig- gered the bear to charge that ended further use of the gun (1%).

There were a total of 40 incidents of 269 where the firearm was not fired. The above are percentages of that 40.

[utax]

.38 revolver was mentioned on a local news segment that included an interview with the guy.

[marktwain]

Thanks. I will ask him for an interview.

[Gaffer]

I have this hanging in my gun room..... funny.

https://www.classictinsigns.com/Lester_s_Ammo_p/1758.htm

[riverrunner]

A properly placed handgun bullet can easily kill even the largest bears.

It has been done many times.

Modern magnum pistol calibers equal or surpass many black powder rifle rounds in power.

These rounds were considered to have more then enough power to hunt large game.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

When my father was stationed in Cold Bay Alaska, one of his fellow troops shot a bear in the rear with a Very pistol ( flare gun ). It ran off setting the tundra on fire.