“And I must dispute the author’s conclusion, just because this poor man ultimately died does not mean guns are an ineffectual defense against animals.”
The man with a gun stopped the attack very quickly. It was so stated in the article. The concluding line in the article was:
“These multiple dog attacks show the utility of firearms in defending against animals.”
How do you interpret that as saying that guns are an ineffectual defense against animals?
Oh, thank you! I’m an idiot and completely misread that as “futility”. LOL, I’m amazed I never made that mistake before, I never realized how close those 2 words are.