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 

[wastoute]

Just outright lying by people who know better is more like it when it comes to anything dealing with guns. Consider just the reporting bias for starters. No way of knowing how many people who fought off a bear attack with a firearm are going to report it? I wouldn’t.

[wastoute]

Actually, stands to reason. The difficulty in bringing the muzzle “to bear” (no pun) with a long gun is why handguns were invented. This is just statistical validation.

[wastoute]

Nobody I have ever met carries a 1911 with the safety off. I would not recommend it. Practice at competition and drill with it on so it is a reflex.

[wastoute]

I a, on the Rast coast so my time in the woods is in black bear country. Have seen a few but I get the sense a black bear is a different critter. Even so, 1911 is what I carry. We’re I to go into brown bear country I would invest in .357 mag or better. I suspect in a brown bear attack the best you can hope for is a couple shots.

I probably outweigh the black bears I have seen ( which means they were young) but I think your standard brown bear is gonna outweigh your standard outdoorsman by a significant amount if not multiples. I would have to agree with the above, if the bear ain’t dying by round three it is probably “going to be one of those days...”

[grey_whiskers]

[wastoute]

I live on the East Coast.... Dunno what happened there.

[NRx]

LMAO

[AnotherUnixGeek]

I have my doubts that my 9mm would stop a bear, but if I were going to be attacked by one, I’d rather put a few holes in his hide than make his eyes a little red with some stupid spray.

[cpdiii]

You still have to pull the hammer back to make it go boom. It is perfectly safe with the safety off even with a round in the tube. Just as safe as a revolver.

I guess we should ban Glocks?

[TigersEye]

We were wondering if you’re busy this weekend. ;-)

[wastoute]

No, you carry “cocked and locked”. Hammer back, safety on. Condition one, I believe is what the experts call it. Practice that way and safety “off” becomes the last bit of “draw” as you look for the front sight. No time wasted, perfectly safe. Nothing against Glocks, I had one, gave it to the SIL. Nice gun. Never felt the safety issue was a feature one way or the other. I never got around to reloading 9mm so I never shot it a whole bunch.

The reason one chooses 1911 is .45 ACP. Consider, 45 Colt was what was around before that. 220 gr. lead bullet with 60 gr of Black Powder. I have a Ruger Old Army that shoots that. It is a frgging canon.

.45 ACP was invented to duplicate that round with “new” smokeless powder. Sure, it isn’t .357 or .41 mag but it is right up there.

Read Ayoob’s Incident in Miami. Three feebs died because ONE BULLET fired was 9 mm.

[Stanwood_Dave]

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

Or it could be chalked up to simple lying, or more affectionately known as "Truth Deficit Disorder."

[Axenolith]

Remember, there’s a freeper (Kanawa) who’s 1-0 in this type of situation with a knife :-)

[riverrunner]

Three agents died in Miami because they were poor shots over 115 rounds fired and only a few hit there target.

The agents tactics were horrible, they were mentally unprepared to take on two known killers.

When going up against two well known robbers would had proven themselves to be every violent.

One does not fail to wear your armor one does not leave your rifles and sub-guns back at the station.

The main reason the FBI agents were shot up and killed is they suffered from a huge case of we are the FBI.

[InABunkerUnderSF]

One does not fail to wear your armor one does not leave your rifles and sub-guns back at the station.

In the olden days they used to call that "Colonel Custer Syndrome".

:-)

The problem with carrying jingle bells in bear country it that they tend to scare off Mr. Elk.

[riverrunner]

I prefer high quality fire arms my self.

[norwaypinesavage]

I walk most every day, but mostly in populated areas where the only dangerous beasts I have ever seen have been dogs and coyotes. I carry pepper spray, not bear spray. It needs to be noted that the pepper spray I use also has a safety position. It is just as easy to "take off the safety" on it as well as any gun.

Given the short range and limited effectiveness of the spray, I suspect that few who forget the "safety" on sprays are around to talk about it.

[mad_as_he$$]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTalnzcO0xk

[mad_as_he$$]

Yup, their deaths were from poor decision making.

[CodeToad]

“Read Ayoob’s Incident in Miami. “

The Ass lied in his write up about that story. That’s well known. He’s the same idiot that claimed no one should use handloaded ammunition because lawyers would make it appear that you were a crazed killer with intent to kill someone, although only two court cases have ever raised the idea without success.