U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- Many people have a difficult time changing their minds once they have formulated an opinion, especially once they have committed to the opinion on the record. I am happy to say fellow writer Wes Siler is of better material than that.
In a June 2017 article, Wes was of the opinion that firearms, all firearms, were worthless as a defense against bears. He opined that statistically speaking, a person, when attacked by a bear, was as well off without a firearm as with one. He depended on research which had some problems with selection bias. Wes, quite generously, quoted me correctly. From outsideonline.com:
Like most tragedies, this one has become a canvas onto which various crackpots and special interests are painting their opinions. My favorite hot take has to be this one on the Truth About Guns, arguing that teenagers should pack heat while going on fun runs. “The runner was able and willing to carry a cellphone,” writes Dean Weingarten. “He could easily have carried a Ruger LCP II, which weighs about as much. Whether or not that would have been ‘enough gun’ for a black bear is not entirely germane. It would have given him a chance.”
Would carrying a small .380-caliber pistol have made a difference? A study of 269 bear encounters conducted in 2012 found that relying on a firearm (any firearm) as your primary line of defense gives you the same odds as carrying no defense whatsoever. Statistically speaking, Cooper was just as safe from bears running without a pistol as he would have been with one.
With a year and a half more experience available to Wes, as well
