You know I have no problem with the VPC statistics.
I have a problem with you trying to claim they represent the number of instances where a defensive gun stopped a violent crime. That's not what they represent and you know it.
As far as "so many DGU's [that] don't resolve to someone dying" what those statistic show is "so many DGU's that don't result in people being protected."
I apologize for suggesting that you are among the folks who point to the 100's of millions of privately-owned firearms in this country and say "banning guns is an impossibility." Of course, we know that just the opposite is true. As some are fond of pointing out, a majority of these weapons are held by law-abiding citizens. IF the new justice appointed by Hillary Clinton (considered by some the most anti-gun candidate in history) were to vote with the 4 dissenters in Heller, the "2nd Amendment creates an individual right" doctrine falls. IF a new Congress votes to strictly limit the private ownership of firearms, these citizens (being law-abiding) would voluntarily surrender their weapons, right? 
Listen, I know it's tough for you guys. You use crime statistics which are inflated by the inclusion of crimes committed in areas that most of you all wouldn't dare go (even with your "self-protection"
to convince upper-middle class suburbanites with substantial disposable incomes that they are in danger from the shadowy figure hiding in their well-manicured hedge so they will pluck down $800-1000 to join your "self-protection" club. Otherwise, you become the whipping boy for this country's refusal to address social problems in a constructive manner (which, btw, is not "getting tough on crime" .
Unfortunately, because we won't address these social problems, this self-protection myth is swelling number of weapons in the stream of commerce (where they are available to all)and putting us as a society in greater danger.
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read