“When I go to the range, my intention is to place every round in the Bulls-eye; thus where the lead actually goes really doesn’t matter - right?”
I do not understand your point. Please elaborate.
This goes to the whole "hate crime" thought process, which I find indefenceible. I do not care what the perp was thinking, or his "state of mind". I care about "what he did", and perhaps "why he did it" only if it is parmount to the case.
For example, I shot Mr. Smith in the head, because he was in my home, uninvited, at 4am after having forced open my patio door. Whether I was mad, scared, angry, happy, sad, depressed, jealous or frustrated about having to replace my patio door has no bearing at all. Mr. Smith was invading my home. If I am white and Mr. Smith is black, and someone alledges I don't like blacks - so what? Mr. Smith still broke into my home at 4am.
If Mr. Jones goes on a shooting spree and fires off 500 rounds at a crowd of people, yet only wings 1 person, I see this as a charge of attempted murder for everyone one in that building. The fact that he was a bad shot means nothing. For all we knew, he may have wanted to hit and kill with each round; but due to being a poor marksman, he missed. That does not detract from the criminal act; nor should the perceived "state of mind" nor "intent of the criminal".
There is no way you can prove that you know what I am thinking as I write this response. I could be admiring my truck, thinking of my new AR-15, admiring the shape of a girl next door, or preparing to kick my cat (assuming I had a cat that needed kicking, and that I would do such a think to my cat in any case). My point is that no one can read minds, let alone prove what someone else was thinking.
“When I go to the range, my intention is to place every round in the Bulls-eye; thus where the lead actually goes really doesn’t matter - right?”
I do not understand your point. Please elaborate.
I believe what Hodar was inferring is that shot placement is king.
This study is a classic correlation does not prove causation study.
"Legal intervention" shootings are probably more fatal because they are being performed by people who are trained to shoot for center of mass, and to continue to shoot until the threat ends. They also practice several times a year or more to refine these skills.
Most of the intentional (assault) shootings are most likely performed by untrained individuals who rarely if ever practice, so shots are more likely to be in non-lethal areas such as arms and legs.