I don't disagree with the premise but data is data. "Much less reliable information" is....well....much less reliable. Protracted exchanges of gunfire between non-LEOs leads me to the conclusion that neither party is much of a threat to the other and any other persons in the area had better take cover. My belief remains that a person is better off being very good with one gun than confusing the issue for themselves with a 2nd gun which may feel and operate differently than the primary.
I just realized that my poor writing probably caused some misunderstanding.
I did not intend to refer to information that was much less reliable. I meant to say that there is much less information about non-LEO shooting that is reliable. Very few people keep track of them (for a lot of reasons) and many will never get reported.