He was probably thinking of cases where a shot had to be fired.
That doesn't really change things. When a shot is fired MOST attackers who are fired upon will cease attacking regardless of the level of injury sustained--including no injury (a miss.)
Incapacitation wasn't achieved here. She was still capable of walking and driving a car, at least for a few minutes afterwards.
Exactly--and in spite of that, she still immediately stopped attacking. That is the case in MOST successful gun uses when the attacker is actually shot. They immediately cease hostilities even if not incapacitated.
with a personal defense weapon, you don't want to be bluffing.
I agree with you 100% and I wasn't suggesting bluffing. I was merely paraphrasing/summarizing the results of a survey on defensive gun uses.
The survey indicated that it's extremely unlikely that a defensive firearm will ever be called upon to INCAPACITATE. In most cases it won't even be fired, and in the rare circumstances when it is fired, even a miss or superficial injury will ALMOST always be sufficient to stop an attack. It's VERY rare that actual incapacitation is required to stop an attack.
I'm not suggesting that we count on bluffing to stop an attack, but that doesn't change the fact that guns are very powerful criminal repellent, even when they are not fired and especially when they are (including many cases when the criminal is not severely injured or incapacitated).
Look at it this way--statistics show that people who drink moderately enjoy slightly better health. By stating that fact, I'm not advocating that anyone drink moderately, I'm just pointing out a fact. Likewise in this situation, I'm not encouraging people to bluff, I'm just pointing out a fact.
