By the way, that was not your original statement. It was as follows:
"They put the chance of not being spotted by a buck above 7 out of 10 hunters losing their lives?" This statement clearly states that seven out of ten hunters lose their lives. I would submit that as stated, this is so far from the truth as to be ridiculous. Your later statement is not the same. in the post prior to this one, you state: "What is so insensible about a stat that 70% of hunters killed were NOT wearing BO? You need a calculator or further explanation?" Now, you have made a better statement, but one open to challenge by statistical analysis. I will use statistics for Pennsylvania during the past four years for this.

Statistics regarding hunters killed in mistake for game:
year wearing orange not wearing orange

2004 1 0
2003 NR NR
2002 1 2
2001 NR NR

In most years, the color of clothing was not reported. The statistics above for two years, 2002 and 2004 would indicate that out of four persons killed, two were in fact wearing blaze orange. Here is the website address at which you can look up the other years.
http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?a=461&q=158315

There is nothing wrong with your statistic, except that you cite no source for it and therefore, it is suspect. If you wish it to be taken seriously, please provide a source.

My analogy to cars was not far-fetched at all. If mandatory blaze orange makes hunting accidents less likely to happen, shouldn't it be required for cars? It should make cars more visible and therefore there would be fewer collissions? Or don't you like the state choosing your car's color?