[David Armstrong]

I gave you facts that could have led to a different outcome.

"Could have" is not facts, it is guesses. Just as my "could have" response is just a guess. Therefore "could have" is fairly worthless, as I can counter any "could have" from you with an equally valid "could have" from me.

22lr really won't go through a solid door when fired from a mousegun neither will a 25acp.

Sometimes it will, sometimes it won't, just like a .38 or a .45. A lot will depend on the door material, the bullet design, etc.

Whether the bad guy would have run off despite the wounds to his body is what we cannot know for sure.

Agreed. WE CANNOT KNOW FOR SURE. That is the key, and that is my point. So for you to try to use that as some kind of evidence is rather faulty.

How do you determine the reason something happened if there are multiple possible outcomes if something different does or doesn't happen.

You can't. That is the point. So when you claim that the caliber was the deciding element of the incident you are wrong. What we do know is that when similar DGU incidents occur the size and caliber of the gun seem to have no effect on the outcome.

I find it humerus how the unknowns are always in your favor though.

What is perhaps more humorous is that you think of these things as "unknowns." We talk to bad guys, we do research on shootings, we study self-defense situations. The fact that BGs almost always stop an attempted entry when shot at is not unknown, it is a well-established principle.

I don't agree with your stats.

Then point out where they are wrong and how that was determined. I've got research on over 10,000 shootings and more DGUs behind me. And they are not just my stats, they are from multiple sources.

The experiences of the shootout survivors I know indicate that caliber could have made a difference. As you are aware since we cannot play each and every shootout over again with lesser or bigger calibers to see the different outcomes I must use "could have".

Maybe you must use "could have", but the rest of us don't. The rest of us can do comparisons, between events, look for commonalities, identify trends, isolate different variables, and so on. I'll give you a real easy example: BG comes in door and attempts to attack GG. GG fires a round into the air and the BG runs off. Caliber doesn't matter. Bg comes back, GG fires and hits BG a non-lethal hit to ear. BG runs off. Caliber doesn't matter. BG comes back, GG shoots him in thigh, BG limps off griping about the pain. Caliber doesn't matter. And so on.

In the three incidents I listed caliber was an issue IMO. In 2 of them a larger caliber allowed the shooter to reach the bad guy were it would have been all but impossible with a mouse gun caliber.

Your opinion duly noted, the facts do not agree with your conclusion. Because the shooters chose to shoot where/when they did does not change the fact they could easily have shot at a different time/position, and the mouse gun could well have penetrated either of those obstacles.

In all three the person armed with heavier won.

Huh!! How can you say that? You don't know how at least 2 of the parties were armed, unless you have left something out of the story earlier. The BG trying to get through the door could have had a .44 Magnum, the guy at the car could have had a sawed-off shotgun, and so on.