No adequate, sufficiently inclusive, and verifiable data t
hat are sufficiently complete and are applicable to support those conclusions. My post explained that.
"First, all of the incidents that Claude studies involved successful defenses. Second, when one notes the number of incidents in which the defender were afforded the opportunity to retrieve a firearm from another location, one quickly realizes that those data are not representative of street or parking lot encounters, in which charging attackers necessitate fast shooting and multiple shots. third, the incidents covered are only this in which someone chose to publicize them.
"Further, the most of the data remain unvalidated media reports".
He did not. He analyzed news reports published in a monthly magazine.
One more time:
"People do crave actual data. That's understandable.
"But we won't get much data regarding civilian defensive shootings, for several reasons:
- Very few civilian defensive shooting incidents occur.
- Data from police investigative reports are not collected for analysis.
- Participants in such incidents are responsibly advised by counsel to remain mum--forever, when fatalities occur.
- Participants in incidents that involve civil litigation, which is almost settled out of court, are bound by the strict terms of the settlements to maintain strict confidentiality forever.
- Few civilians wear body cams, and if they do the recordings will not prudently be made public
"I really hope this proves helpful."
A lot of data are recorded when police shootings occur, but what are made public is another thing.
