I think the stat I saw was something like only 20% of gunshots were fatal and that's just counting the hits. Fire ten shots say maybe half of them hit and only one in five are fatal the BG has pretty good chance of seeing a court date.
The main issue, as I stated in my first post, is that we shoot only as long as there is a threat. If I am attacked and I shoot my attacker, and he is able to run away, I will holster my sidearm since the threat is over. I have succeeded in thwarting the attack. I have survived. This is my goal. I certainly won't lament the fact that he was still able to run away.
The NRA may also shy away from publishing many cases when the BG's die to avoid giving the anti's any more ammo - much more acceptable to put the BG in the hospital than grave (in their opinion).
I suppose its a matter of perspective as I have noticed the opposite. I started reading the "the armed citizen" when I was young,since I would say 1968 or so and have in the last few years noticed several changes.
The main change in the story line has been two items. No. 1 item is people in the last couple of decades are shooting bigger calibers I dont see near as many .22 & .25 caliber guns being used for defence. Its much more common to read about 9mm .40 .38 & .45 even .223 & shotguns than it ever was in the 60's 70's & 80's.
The No. 2 item is bluntly, fatalities. In decades passed the phrase "apprehended seeking medical attention" was far more common than it is today.
This subject has been discussed with my hunting, shooting buddies for the last several years and the conventional wisdom has been people seek out better training (does any school recomend .22s & .25s?) & defencive ammo has become much much better and lastly people just plain enjoy shooting as more indoor ranges have become available, so people practice more & with bigger calibers.
These are just my personal observations & dosent mean I'm right. It would be interesting for someone to research the files of the "armed citizen" & see what if anything has changed.
The #1 reason people survive gunshot wounds is because of quick, readily available modern medical care. That's it. In the "old west", the death rate from being shot was MUCH higher.
A woman ..... couldn't get rid of her husband, and in her words ... "was driving her crazy". She tried to poison him 2 times, and even though she gave him enough poison to kill 4 horses, he survived. He would not "grant" her a divorce. Finally, having all she could take..... she took a .38 revolver and shot him in the face at literally almost point black range... and unloaded the gun.
They were "interviewing " this man from his hospital bed..... and he said he knew the poisonings were just accidental and she didn't mean it, and they asked about her shooting him in the face 6 times point blank, and he said ..... "she was just angry at the time, I know she still LOVES ME"...... his plans were to go back to his wife once he was out of the hospital. However, she was charged with attempted murder.... and likely to get life in prison...... I'm betting she was happy. At the hospital.... he was telling his interviewers that he could never leave her because ... "she's pregnant and going to have our baby" . "Mr XXXXX..... have the Dr's explained to you that your wife had a complete hysterectomy and can't get pregnant ? " . The man, "oh, they tried to tell me that stuff, but the Drs' were lieing , I know she's pregnant" .
Don't get real life, confused with Hollywood.
On another day, a guy gets shot in the head with a .25 cal handgun and dies almost immediately.
So, it is not just "shot placement".
FWIW a fairly well known firearms trainer points out that when shot with handguns, bad guys typically run away. When shot with long guns (rifles & shotguns) they're usually DRT. I suppose that's probably true, by and large. If I knew there was going to be a gunfight on a given day I'd stay home that day! But if I couldn't avoid the fight I'd prefer to be armed with a rifle.