I object to a particular line:

So why no apparent interest in unarmed self defense incidents? In principle self defense is the same regardless of the weapon or lack of one.

Unarmed self defense is not lethally oriented. Armed self defense is (usually) lethally oriented. The exception to the latter is weaponry designed as less-than-lethal.

The further significant difference firearms bring to the equation is range. With most weapons, the implicit threat exists in two stages: warning and threat. Warning is “I have the potential to harm you, but can not do so unless one of us escalates by closing range.” A firearm has no such warning zone. It moves the situation from “self defense” to “mutual threat.”

Note that I’m not saying firearms are a bad self-defense option with this statement. I am saying that arguing that firearms and fists or even firearms and clubs or blades are the same for self defense is wrong.