Geez, you guys really are missing the point here. And I can tell for all easyg had to say, he didn't read it. The guy goes into all of that. He mentions that sometimes he knows more about some shootings than others. He mentions most 9mm victims are multiple shot victims most times. He can tell which shot killed, but not which order. Distance can be determined. You know what? Go back and read it and then come and discuss it.
I studied statistics too (along with physics, philosophy, history and math, focusing on mathematical analysis with a penchant for the "real" variety). I know about biased samples. I also know a sample is in and of itself biased. What isn't biased is the fact these are humans shot with bullets in the US. The shootings in Atlanta, where he is, are just as good for comparison as ones in LA. The discussion is about what different calibre rounds do to humans in defensive situations, although not everything he sees is defensive.
Basically, I offer this information up to be read and used for your own knowledge and scrutiny. Discuss it if you want to, but there isn't anything to discredit or discuss in general, as that is a very long piece he wrote of unusual content. He clearly points out what areas are gray (and there are a lot of them) and what areas are unknown to him (enough to still walk away with questions). In that respect, unless you just disagree with what he saw (and you can't, you weren't there) then there is nothing really to discuss outside of his observations. Get it? I mean seriously, do you get it? Because he discusses that too, the misinterpretation and misunderstanding of what he is trying to convey.
I just think the information is useful in that for me it fills in an area of defense not previously known to me. I've been in the military, sniper, SDM instructor, etc. You could say I'm pretty good with a firearm. But what I don't know so much about is what happens to humans in defensive situations in our domestic "peacetime" setting using handguns, ie, concealed carry self defense in the US.
And really, unless you work in a (city, county) morgue, you can't know this information. Sure, you can read reports and books, but to get this informations firsthand... Even paramedics, police, crime scene investigators, etc. don't have this kind of information. They have a different, although maybe the same depending, kind of information but always viewed through a different lens. You can find lots of police and paramedic testimony, but not so much morgue. And especially a morgue guy with police experience that is a gun nut too. That is why I find this useful.
I can't defend this anymore really. There isn't anything to defend, just like there isn't anything here to attack. Just read the stuff, don't read the stuff, I don't care either way, I just thought that it would be useful information to those that are interested. If you are interested in this kind of observation, you hit the jackpot. If not, you are probably missing the point.
Because note what I am saying: for all the science, history, experience, and research I have done, I still can't say for sure what works better in a defensive handgun situation (rifles are different, but that is a different story altogether). Simply too many variables, using a marginal weapon that compromises on too many items.
Now as far as using hunting as a comparison... Yeah, sort of, but not really. Deer and bear respond differently when shot (never shot a bear, but I've heard about, when I see 'em they are usually going the other way). Both physiologically psychologically (he goes into that too I think, at least in regards to different human responses). Plus you don't usually use a handgun, in particular defensive calibres. It's just cruel, although some people use them for finishing shots.
