When I'm engaging with someone I try to use the words they're using, in the context I think they're using them, so that we can have a meaningful discussion.
What I've written is that people's life experiences and physical attributes impact the statistical odds of a successful defensive encounter. You initially had difficulty accepting that statistics don't predict an individual's odds of success, but you did accept that in post #56 where you wrote:
but under most circumstances you have arguably a better possibility of success than the hypothetical 95 year old woman
Now, given that we've accepted that different people, with different levels of experience, training, life skills, athleticism, etc, will have different odds of successfully defending themselves, why would you then regress to your previous position in post #58?
You're trying to make your argument while avoiding hypothetical scenarios but given the rarity of gun violence and even rarer defensive gun uses, hypotheticals are a necessary evil. I've only personally been involved in one defensive gun use and I am unlikely to ever be in that same situation, or even a remotely similar situation, ever again.
We talk about hypothetical situations we can envision but they're based off real scenarios that can and do happen, like the ATM robbery, or the active shooter at the mall, or the home invasion. Despite the extremely low chance I will ever encounter something like one of those scenarios, they're still far more likely than encountering a similar scenario to what I faced in the previously mentioned defensive gun use and yet that actually happened.
All that is to say this: I would have been murdered or would have been gravely wounded if not for a firearm used defensively. I must already be an exception to your statistics.