[quote] Show us your data! Show us something that you base your claims on.[\quote]
I have told you. I don’t make claims. I make statements of fact based years of research. I have told you some of the sources for that research. If you are unwilling or unable to take the time to look something up yourself, I feel no obligation to do it for you.
Again, I don’t say the data is wrong, I say you are presenting it wrong for the purpose of this discussion. Whether you are doing that simply because you don’t know any better or you are doing it for some personal agenda I don’t know. When you start out your discussion with an incorrect statement of what the SOP9 is and does, I question if you have any idea what you are talking about. When you continue to argue a point that is patently incorrect (failure to include any legitimate shootings other than exchanges of gunfire) I begin to question even more.
You say it's the NRA and SOP-9, but when I show data from the SOP-9, you say it's wrong or I'm picking years. I didn't; I presented years I found.
I will take that response to indicate that no, you have not ever seen an original SOP9 report. As for sharing them with you, I doubt that the forum moderator would like for me to post a 54 page document here, or even a 17 page document for that matter. I have posted the findings of various studies (not just SOP9). If you want to go through pages of data, go find it. I’m not going to waste my time by copying it here.
You ask if I have ever seen an original SOP-9 document - have you? If you have why don't you share them with us? Why don't you post something to support your claims?
Let’s start by showing where you have incorrectly used the data. First, SOP9 IS NOT a document that “indicated that officers who fired 2-3 shots in a gunfight died in the gunfight”, as you initially claimed. Nor, as you initially claimed, that “this study is about officers that died in gunfights”. SOP 9 DOES NOT include suicides and accidental shootings in the figuring the average of shots fired in gunfights or defensive use, as you indicated. SOP 9 IS NOT “some study of 30 years ago” as you initially claimed.
You say I misuse the data, why don't you show us the data and how to analyze it?
Now, to correctly analyze the data, you need to decide what it is you are going to look at. For example, are you going to look only at those incidents where the BG fired a gun at the officer, as you have been doing? Or do you want to look at all incidents where the officer legitimately used his gun in defense? Are you going to take an average, or do you want to look at the median number of shots fired (a better method, IMO). Do you control for what are called “bunch shootings” or not, keeping in mind that the bunch shooting phenomenon appears to increase the overall shots fired by almost 50%? Will you include incidents where long guns were used by the officer or just those with the handgun? What about situations where a sniper shoots the BG from a distance? Will you use individual years for analysis or will you look at trends over time?
Now, in a very short period of time we have identified at least 4 incorrect statements you made regarding SOP9, 1 major analysis issue, and 5 control issues. That is just a start. Hopefully you will see why “show us the data and how to analyze it” is a somewhat impractical request in a forum like this. Of course, we haven’t even got started on the question of how applicable this data is to non-LE shootings. Personally, I don’t find it particularly relevant for that, which is why you look at lots of other sources.
Now you are just being plain silly, or just trying to create problems, one or the other. BY YOUR OWN POST, a gunfight “defines any incident during which both the perpetrator and the member of the service fired their weapons at each other”, and “Any incident whereby the member of the service fired his/her weapon to defend him/herself or another against a perpetrator” is in a different category, that of defense of self or others. Surely you are not going to try to claim that nobody gets attacked with knives and clubs?
Show us the data of knife and club attacks to support your claims.
That is a rather silly concept itself. Do you mean to say that unless I post the entire Encyclopedia Britannica here when I mention something I read in it that I am being evasive??? Again, I’ve given you several sources that you can look at. If you are too lazy to research them yourself don’t expect me to do it for you.
If you can't show any data or sources for your claims, and you continue unfounded critiques of data presented, it could give the impression that you are being evasive because you don't have any support to show us.