No, it doesn't.
Real mature Simon. I post the statistics so we can have a meaningful discussion about unarmed shootings, use of force, and implicit bias - and this is how respond? Like a little child? "Not ugh".
Time and time again I've given you a chance to raise your objections but instead you choose to remain willfully ignorant on the topic. This is getting tiresome and it's becoming blatantly clear you haven't taken the time to read a single one of these studies. Instead of addressing any of the research, you've instead chosen to just try to shout people down by way of attrition.
The raw number of people shot doesn't matter
Correct! You're finally getting it! It's not the raw number of people shot. It's the number of UNARMED people who are shot. Because their's a huge difference between shooting someone who is armed vs. shooting someone who is unarmed. And if you're willing to do the extra work you can be even more specific in our break down. The names of every person who was shot and the day it happened is included in the research. If - as you've proposed - you think black people go for officers guns and white people don't (a ridiculous proposition but one you've made none the less) you can subtract the number of black AND white persons who did this. Of course, the only way to balance out the statistics would be if 5 out of 6 black people went for the officers gun and NONE of the white people did.
See Simon, some of us understand how statistics work. And some - like yourself - don't. There are numerous sites that teach a basic understanding of statistics which would enable you to carry on a more informed discussion on the matter.
The study referenced several times indicates that there simply isn't the situation that you are pushing for.
Be more specific. What "situation" am I pushing for? And which of the studies I linked doesn't indicate it?