Hacker News Reader

A handgun won't be of much use if you're jumped on from behind by a beast 3 times your weight and many times your strength.

View on HN

If pouncing on villagers routinely resulted in catching a 12ga slug (buddy system when doing high risk things will do a pretty good job of guaranteeing that) then the tigers that live long enough to pass on their genes would be the ones that don't make a habit of pouncing on villagers.

It only takes a few generations for animals to become afraid of or lose their fear of humans. You see this in all sorts of species when hunting pressure is applied/removed.

I suspect you’d find that a single untrained human, even well-armed, isn’t always sufficient to kill a tiger.

So rather than avenge your buddy and improve the tiger gene pool, you’d get killed too.

For grizzly bear attacks, bear mace is more effective than guns. https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/spray-more-effective-than...

You don't have to get them every time just often enough that they stop doing it It's about making it statically much riskier for the tigers to misbehave, not saving everyone.

Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_attack the majority who attack humans are infirm and desperate. Doubt taking them out of the gene pool would do any long-term good.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com