RELATIVE stopping power, one-shot-stop
- Thread starter Dr_2_B
- Start date
- Status
Michael Courtney
Member
The anti-gun argument provides a lot of great example of lying with statistics such as claiming a high rate of "children" involved in gun deaths while failing to mention that the study includes men as old as 25 as "children" or including suicides in the statistics claiming that gun "violence" is a growing problem.
I've read all three of the M&S stopping power books pretty carefully, along with the published criticisms and a large number of private criticisms. As far as I can tell, the M&S study objectively and consistently applied their clearly stated selection criteria to the reports to which they had access.
One can always find something to quibble with in an epidemiological-type study like M&S because the researchers make choices between certain trade-offs in their data collection method and their selection criteria. But in spite of some relatively minor weaknesses, the M&S study is scientifically and statistically sound, although there are certain quantifiable accuracy limitations that mandate care in interpretation.
If you want to see someone lying with statistics, have a look at MacPherson's article in Wound Ballistics Review, _Statistical Analysis Tells the Ugly Story_. In addition to being statistically and scientifically unsound, the article includes other logical fallacies such as ad hominem attack, appeal to authority, false dichotomy, and non-sequitor. The statements in this article are so shocking for a peer-reviewed scientific journal, that it reflects poorly not only on the author, but also on the editorial staff who allowed such personal attacks and flawed statistical reasoning to be published.
Michael Courtney
Shawn Dodson
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,198
You wrote:
Now we need to "limit" discussion of a subject with "relatively little evidence" so we won't waste your time? I can be lazy too.
Please show me convincingly that they are not? Marshall provides the anecdotes as examples of one-shot stopping power successes and failures.
Michael Courtney
Member
Dodson wrote:
You are mistaken. These accounts are provided as examples of "actual street results." Your representation of them as "one-shot stopping power successes and failures" is absurd. All of these accounts fit the description of "actual street results" but many of these accounts fail to meet the selection criteria for inclusion in the one-shot stop data set.
The criteria for inclusion in the OSS data set include (among other things), being hit a single time, and being hit in the thoracic cavity. Of the three incidents you mention, one suspect was shot twice in the head. It seems clear that he was not included in the data set because he doesn't meet the selection criteria. Another suspect you refer to was hit three times in the upper thoracic cavity. A third suspect in one of the accounts you referenced was hit once in the throat and once in the groin. These shootings clearly do not meet the selection criteria, so it is clear that they were not included in the OSS data set.
Any given account may be classified as a "success" or "failure" based on the positive or nagative outcome of the protagonist. However, in addition to potentially being classified as a "success" or "failure" a shooting event must meet strict criteria for inclusion in the OSS data set. How can you criticize the data set based on shooting events which clearly were not included?
Your presupposition that every account described in the M&S books was included in the OSS data set is clearly false.
You should interpret the accounts of shooting events for what they are: gun writer summaries of shooting events intended to increase interest and readability of the books by the general gun enthusiast audience. These shooting event descriptions are of no more scientific value than similar event descriptions in the NRA gun magazines and other magazines. There is no reason to assume any one-to-one correspondence with the OSS data set which clearly has more narrowly defined selection criteria. These accounts of shooting events neither add to nor detract from the scientific value and validity of the OSS data presented elsewhere in the M&S books.
Michael Courtney
You are mistaken. These accounts are provided as examples of "actual street results." Your representation of them as "one-shot stopping power successes and failures" is absurd. All of these accounts fit the description of "actual street results" but many of these accounts fail to meet the selection criteria for inclusion in the one-shot stop data set.
The criteria for inclusion in the OSS data set include (among other things), being hit a single time, and being hit in the thoracic cavity. Of the three incidents you mention, one suspect was shot twice in the head. It seems clear that he was not included in the data set because he doesn't meet the selection criteria. Another suspect you refer to was hit three times in the upper thoracic cavity. A third suspect in one of the accounts you referenced was hit once in the throat and once in the groin. These shootings clearly do not meet the selection criteria, so it is clear that they were not included in the OSS data set.
Any given account may be classified as a "success" or "failure" based on the positive or nagative outcome of the protagonist. However, in addition to potentially being classified as a "success" or "failure" a shooting event must meet strict criteria for inclusion in the OSS data set. How can you criticize the data set based on shooting events which clearly were not included?
Your presupposition that every account described in the M&S books was included in the OSS data set is clearly false.
You should interpret the accounts of shooting events for what they are: gun writer summaries of shooting events intended to increase interest and readability of the books by the general gun enthusiast audience. These shooting event descriptions are of no more scientific value than similar event descriptions in the NRA gun magazines and other magazines. There is no reason to assume any one-to-one correspondence with the OSS data set which clearly has more narrowly defined selection criteria. These accounts of shooting events neither add to nor detract from the scientific value and validity of the OSS data presented elsewhere in the M&S books.
Michael Courtney
Harold Mayo
Member
Absolutely disgusting.
Mad Chemist
Member
MC, all of the articles you cited except Thompson HJ et al refer to nervous system trauma. Many of the articles are specific to CNS trauma. Nervous tissue is highly cellular, generally lacks elasticity, and is quite fragile compared to most other tissue types.
So what.
Most everyone here agrees that a CNS hit is likely to be the proverbial one shot stop.
I believe one of the main problems of the M&S studies lies with the subjective methods by which the data were collected. This coupled with many of the inferences that don't jibe with the much more comprehensive FBI stats make many of M&S's conclusions highly suspect.
Complaining about fallacious responses is fine and dandy, but loading your posts with underhanded tactical maneuvers and redirects while you're doing it is pretty slick.
You should become a politician.
JH
Michael Courtney
Member
Actually, all the papers refer to nervous system trauma, but they all suggest mechanisms for creating neural trauma by pressure wave mechanisms without directly hitting the CNS.
The implication is that sufficiently large pressure waves can create sufficient neural trauma to contribute to rapid incapacitation without a direct hit to the CNS.
There selection criteria is similar to that used by many epidemiological-type studies, and your criticism of their experimental design as "subjective" is unwarranted.
To my knowledge, FBI-associated researchers have not published any data or statistics which would allow for an evaluation of the M&S data set. FBI-associated researchers have published their opinions on the M&S data set, but they have not backed up those opinions with published data or statistics.
The data that has been published by the FBI-associated researchers concerns wounding rather than incapacitation. Claiming this wounding data contradicts the M&S study depends on the unproven presupposition that incapacitatation can only be caused by easily detectable wounding. The papers I referenced make it clear that there are incapacitation and neural injury mechanisms that are only detectable by advanced techniques.
The sole arbiter of scientific truth is repeatable experiment, which means you have to publish data as well as sufficient detail of the method to replicate the work. The M&S work fulfills this criteria, and the M&S data set is remarkably consistent with the hypothesis that there is a pressure wave associated neural incapacitation mechanism working independently of the permanent cavity (blood loss) mechanism.
Michael Courtney
That's EXACTLY what makes it vulnerable to the kind of trauma that muscle tissue and other tough, elastic tissues are practically immune to.
And that vulnerability is EXACTLY what makes the pressure wave theory plausible.
The main premise of the pressure wave theory (as I understand it) is that CNS tissue can be damaged WITHOUT a CNS hit due to its fragility and lack of elasticity.
Shawn Dodson
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,198
Nearly every cartridge listing presents example incidents of “success” and “failure.”
Both examples are listed under “Federal .357 SIG 125-grain Failure.”
These are examples in which I question either Marshall’s classification of the shooting as a one-shot stop or his ability to classify the shooting when there is no eyewitness. It's reasonable to assume that similar situations exist throughout his findings.
The incident reported on pp. 242-243 indeed meets criteria for inclusion.
You’re jumping to conclusions. I’m well aware that many of the “actual street results” anecdotes do not fit the criteria.
And
Of course they’re of “scientific value.” They provide insight to the quality of his interpretation.
As most nerves in the abdomen/thorax are efferent, the "neural trauma" effect is not transmitted to the CNS. Of afferent nerves, the trauma causes the nerves to quit working or to work less effectively (such as the numbness and tingling produced in the lower arm when one bumps the "funny bone").
Michael Courtney
Member
You are misrepresenting the work. The listings describing individual events typically present several unclassified events for the cartridge followed by one or two events classified as a "failure." The authors do not specifically classify events in these brief descriptions as "success." It is your interpretation (rather than an explicit statement by the authors) that the unclassified events should be considered as "success."
The presence of an eyewitness is not always necessary to determine the outcome of an event with sufficient certainty for classification. Surely you are aware that forensic science and other investigation techniques can determine facts without the benefit of an eyewitness? The M&S selection criteria for a failure is for the attacker to either: 1) fire another shot 2) strike another blow or 3) move more than 10 feet after being hit. The selection criteria for a success is that the attacker not do any of these three things. There is not a need of a witness, because the selection criteria does not depend on a eyewitness account of what the attacker might be capable of doing after being shot. The selection criteria depends on what the attacker actually does, and if the actions can be determined with a reasonable degree of certainty, the event can be classified.
So, even though there were no witnesses to immediate reaction the guys in the dark ditch with the AR-15, this event can be classified as a success because no further shots were fired, no blows were struck, and the attackers never made it more than 10 feet from where they were shot. Conversely, the event where the fellows who were shot in orchard were recovered some distance away can be classified as a failure because they made it more than 10 feet.
You might have a case if these events were explicitly labeled as "success." However, they aren't. In particular, the event described on p242-243 is not explicitly classified as a success. This provides insight to the quality of your reading comprehension.
The last time I checked, the spinal cord was located in the thorax, and is considered a part of the CNS. In addition, several studies have shown that larger pressure waves originating in the thorax reach both the spinal cord and brain. So what happens if the pressure wave hitting the spine works like a bump to the "funny bone" causing the neural path to the lower extremeties to quit working?
In addition, there are key nerves for blood pressure regulation in the thorax. If these nerves stop working properly, one's blood pressure can drop rapidly (even without a loss of blood volume) causing a person to faint or have difficulty standing.
Michael Courtney
Michael Courtney
Member
The fact that a pressure wave reaching the brain can cause incapacitation and injury without direct (penetrating) brain injury is a well-established, repeatable fact. There are reams of papers in the peer-reviewed journals supporting this.
Michael Courtney
Shawn Dodson
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,198
And
I refer you to P 241:
"We have not included any shooting incidents involving either .22 Long Rifle or .25 ACP. Both of these loads are dismal stoppers, and including examples of successful stops with them would give a false sense of confidence that is totally unjustified.
"We have included at least one failure in each caliber due to repeated requests by readers for this information."
"We have included at least one failure in each caliber due to repeated requests by readers for this information."
This implies to me that unless an example is specifically classified as a "failure" then it is an example of a "successful stop" regardless if one or more hits was landed. I haven't taken the time or effort to review all examples, but the few I did look at fit this description.
How can one determine with certainty if the gunshot wound recipient was rendered incapable of "striking another blow?" One cannot. Simply because the badguy did not fire another shot does not mean he was incapacitated and incapable of firing another shot.
One experiences flaccid paralysis. However, falling down is not "incapacitation." Alexandria, VA, police learned this the hard way when one of their snipers shot Jamie Martin Wise squarely in the torso with a .223. After he fell to the ground he shot and killed Cpl. Charles Hill, racked his shotgun and shot and wounded Ofcr. Andrew Chechowski.
Posted by MC in #58
So, based on your post #58, it is merely an implication--merely a theory that is "suggested" or "implied" to those who want to be it in the first place.
Posted by MC in #63
Looks like your arguing with yourself, Michael. (Sophistry will do that do you--even though it can work quite in junior college classrooms).
So, based on your post #58, it is merely an implication--merely a theory that is "suggested" or "implied" to those who want to be it in the first place.
Michael Courtney
Member
You are creating a strawman fallacy by misrepresenting my words. I nowhere said that the pressure wave mechanism is "merely" suggested or implied. I used the words "suggested" and "implied" but you changed my meaning by adding the word "merely."
This is an example of sophistry on your part. My actual wording that these referenced peer-reviewed journal publications "suggest" and "imply" that a pressure wave can cause incapacitation and injury in no way contradict the stronger assertion that the established fact that a pressure wave causes incapacitation and injury has been conclusively demonstrated in reams of peer-reviewed journal articles.
My original wording is analagous to:
A implies B or A suggests B.
This is absolutely consistent with the later statement more equivalent to:
B is well demonstrated and proven.
In contrast your straman fallacy inserts the word merely creating a different meaning:
A merely implies B or A merely suggests B
which would be more equivalent to
B is not yet a well demonstrated fact.
Inserting the word "merely" changes the meaning and creates a strawman fallacy.
Michael Courtney
Michael Courtney
Member
You are creating a false dichotomy fallacy by insisting the authors intended the reader to consider every event not explicitly classified as a "failure" as a "success." This is unwarranted. One should leave a middle ground for potential events where there is insufficient evidence for classification, or where a good hit provided an advantage in the ongoing gun fight without providing an instantaneous outcome at that point.
Your attempt to achieve a one-to-one correspondence between the brief shooting accounts and the OSS data set seems to be forcing a strict success/failure classification on these shooting accounts that is not explicitly stated by the authors. Being that the strict success/failure classification is your own interpretation (rather than an explicit statement by the authors), it is unwarranted to use it as a basis of criticising the scientific quality of the published work.
You might be valid in suggesting the authors should have been clearer in whether they regarded the unclassified shooting accounts as successes. But this criticism merely reflects the clarity of writing, not the quality of the science.
The OSS criteria is concerned with what the attacker actually does, rather than what he is capable of doing. Even with an eyewitness account, what an attacker is capable of doing is a subjective assessment. In contrast, what the attacker actually does is both objective and does not always require an eyewitness. It is clear that an attacker who voluntarily surrenders after being hit is classified as a stop and that the OSS "success" numbers include a significant contribution of voluntary stops.
What you mean is that falling down is not _ALWAYS_ incapacitation.
If I am in a gun fight, I certainly like my odds a lot better if the violent criminal attacker falls down. Don't you? Certainly, no one is suggesting that a deadly force encounter is over when the attacker falls down, but it does create a significant advantage for the good guys.
For one thing, it takes about 0.5 seconds for a person to fall down, and the possibility of an attacker delivering accurate aimed fire while falling is pretty remote. From the time the attacker begins falling until he regroups and is capable of resuming accurate fire represents a significant opportunity for the good guys to deliver more hits that terminates the issue.
Michael Courtney
Nope, you're treading water, Mike. I quoted you verbatim and then made comments on your quote.
Not exactly--unless you really want to believe B. It really represents a mighty big leap of faith on your. That kind of logic may work in junior college classroom (and may be a good example of the "Peter Principle" at work).
How about, in the interests of honesty, "My actual wording that these referenced peer-reviewed journal publications "suggest" and "imply" that a pressure wave may cause incapacitation" (particularly if you really want to believe it).
jc,
It is accepted that a pressure wave that reaches the BRAIN can cause incapacitation and injury.
The brain is only PART of the CNS.
The cited articles suggest that what is accepted about the brain is also applicable to the rest of the CNS.
BTW, the fact that two statements are CONSISTENT with each other in no way implies that one of the two statements FOLLOWS or can be CONCLUDED from the other. It doesn't even really imply that they support each other. It is merely an observation that they do not contradict each other.
It is accepted that a pressure wave that reaches the BRAIN can cause incapacitation and injury.
The brain is only PART of the CNS.
The cited articles suggest that what is accepted about the brain is also applicable to the rest of the CNS.
There was no contradiction in the original quotes as Mr. Courtney has already pointed out. You created a sort of "contradiction" when you restated/summarized his quote incorrectly.
BTW, the fact that two statements are CONSISTENT with each other in no way implies that one of the two statements FOLLOWS or can be CONCLUDED from the other. It doesn't even really imply that they support each other. It is merely an observation that they do not contradict each other.
You did restate.
Here is what Mr. Courtney said:
That don't work...
Here is what Mr. Courtney said:
Here is what YOU said Mr. Courtney said:
Among other things, you added the word "merely" in your restatement. That changed the meaning and created a sort of contradiction.
No. He stated what the ARTICLES say/suggest/imply. You then restated his reply with commentary added and then argued as if YOUR restatement was what HE actually said.
That don't work...
Right, he says the articles "suggest/imply" (but NOT that they "say"), period. (Which remains a long ways from being a provable, reproducable fact). Then he switches to treading water with his "buts".
BTW, John, when you thrrew in the word "say", you provided an excellent example of what restatement really means (versus comments on a direct statement).
Last edited:
I think not. When Mr. Courtney states: "...the papers refer to..." that easily qualifies as his telling us what the articles "say".
There is a significant difference between using a synonym and adding commentary plus tacking on a qualifier that changes the entire meaning of the quote.
The point is this.
Mr. Courtney told us what the articles suggest/imply/refer to. You then created a very brief summary of his assessment of the article's contents and added a qualifier and commentary. Then you pointed out that your summary and commentary apparently contradicted what Mr. Courtney said elsewhere and tried to hold him accountable.
First of all Mr. Courtney was summarizing what the ARTICLES said. So unless you are claiming that his summary is incorrect (you would have to read the articles to make such a claim), then your problem is with the articles, not Mr. Courtney.
Second, even overlooking the first problem, there was no contradiction except with YOUR restatement. You can't put words in someone else's mouth and then try to use those generated/modified words to prove the person's contradicting himself.
Yep, it might:
and the definition of suggest might help too:
"Imply" and "suggest," in the context in which they were used remain a long ways from being a provable, reproducible fact. In other words, the papers merely implied (or suggested) what he wants to believe.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
