Mike Goncalves

146 of them were successful.

There were...

The 146 out of 170 were successful.

There were 24 cases where the handgun was fired in conjunction with another instrument, and those cases were not included in the statistics.

So of those 146, there were only three cases that were judged to be failures in stopping the attack.

The first was a polar bear attack in Norway where a 22 rimfire handgun was used and one dude was killed and another was injured.

June 2010, a geologist in Alaska fired at an attacking grizzly with a .357 mag three times, never hitting the bear, and he got fucked up.

The third was a September 2015 black bear attack in New Mexico where a man fired a 38 special trying to scare the better off rider than hurt or kill it bit through one of his boots as he was climbing a tree to escape.

So 140 successful defenses out of 143 incidents adds up to a 98% rate.

And the three failures, um,

I want to say that the .22 rimfire was the only reason.

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm thinking.

So the reason I picked this article and the reason I went a little long in the tooth about it, this article is a great...

bit of evidence that just having a handgun in the woods, it doesn't matter what you have.

Having something is better than having nothing.

Um, so even if it's a, a $300 Glock 22 that you got off aim surplus, cause they sell them there.

Um, you can load that up with 200 grain underwood, uh, uh, hard cast, uh,

lead rounds like i did um if you have a 10 mil glock a g20 or a 10 mil 1911 there's there's a ton of different 10 mil handguns on the market these days like 10 mils kind of exploding in popularity if if it i mean it's what it feels to me um

They just have something.

It doesn't even get a nine mil.