Since you mention IWBA and the FBI, care to point me to where I can read their source data? Because if you can�t (and I�m thinking you can�t), then YOU haven�t seen it either, so this �empirical data� you speak of can�t be cross examined, peer reviewed, or validated in any way; wouldn�t you agree? And if that�s the case, the science is basically non-existent.
Kevin, one of the best articles on OIS's is by Tom Aveni of the Police Policy Studies Council. If you go to their website:
... and scroll down the main page you'll find a link to an article entitled "Officer Involved Shootings: What We Didn't Know Has Hurt Us". It's not a new study, but it's very well-written by a very scholarly guy and it explains a lot about how and why getting raw shootings data is so difficult.
I have been accumulating OIS reports from all over the country for over a decade. I can only assemble a "complete" report one time in 20; people just don't like to share the information, for reasons Aveni goes into in his paper. I have shared my findings at LE conferences but have no desire to put this information into a published format because, as you say, my findings don't meet the basic requirements of scientific investigation.
In terms of real science of wound ballistics, terminal effects, etc, there is a little bit of stuff here and there in the trauma literature, lots of good info in the now-defunct IWBA Journal, and the FBI gelatin studies database. I believe the FBI data are available for the asking, but don't have any idea who you'd need to get hold of for that.
"I'm gonna have to science the schit out of this." Mark Watney, Sol 59, Mars
