Personal endorsements for or against Mas Ayoob as a person are not in the remotest element relevant to this discussion.
ctdonath stated, "Just because something hasn't happened yet doesn't disprove the concern that it reasonably could according to someone whose job it is to know and predict such things. "
Ah, the chant of the dataless. The alternate chant of the dataless, rather the counter argument I am using that is just as valid for the same reasons as you believe Ayoob's argument to be valid is that just because he says it could happen does not mean it will. He does promote the aspect that it is a very real likelihood and hence suggests specific behaviors on the parts of gun owners. These are apparently based on his premise, for which he has no data that he has ever published, that it will happen. My counter argument is simple. He has had 30 years of shooting data from which to gather court information and that as the professional witness gunwriter law enforcement officer, you would think that if there was supporting data to his claims, he would be one of the first to know about them and they would be published as proof of his prognostication abilities in his writings. He has lots of LEO and student fans out there who are in contact with him. Some have responded here. If any of those had the information, they would likely share it with him. So his potential reference network is HUGE. Still no data.
He made his predictions and repeats them in print like he repeats information on people needing to keep their mouths shut after a shooting, as if they both carry comparable weight.
FYI, Ayoob is not in the legal business except as a tech. He is a cop, gun writer, and testifies in court, but is NOT a lawyer. He also is not in futures trading or an odds maker in Vegas. It is not his job to predict such things professionally except in gun writing and as an odds maker, he is right up there with Chicken Little. The sky may fall. Just because it hasn't fallen yet does not mean it won't. That's the logic, right? I could contend that since we have a long history of the sky not falling, that it is something of a myth, even comparable to a children's story.
grnzbra, I appreciate your offer of Bernie Goetz. I have no idea as to the specifics to which you are referring, but as I recall, he was acquitted of the shooting (but I don't know the reason for being acquitted), but lost the civil suit. He used a regular Beretta and supposedly used hollowpoint ammo (not handload). I don't recall any aspects relevant to handloads, race gun, or anything like that. He did have the right to use lethal force, but did so with an illegal weapon for which he did jail time. It was argued, and I don't know if it was verified, that he used ammunition that was illegal in New York and said ammunition was what he used to shoot the attacker that was paralyzed. Said ammo was hollowpoint ammo.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cas91.htm Maybe somebody can state the basis for the loss of the civil suit, but I don't know it. No doubt it did not help that he told NBC that he was on a halluncigenic drug at the time of the shooting.
http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/89/132/09_2_m.html
)
