As this condition is exactly the one in which we would use a gun in SD, perhaps it is the best scenario from which to gather data that would be applicable to us?the officers weren't going into the situation looking to see how the caliber worked. They were going into the situation to stop a threat
But there is no database. No discussions. Because it has been decided it isn't worth looking at. Forget about it. After all, street results are just street results.
because the variability makes it near impossible for one round to be proven to be better than another
It is decided that "it's not worth looking at" because the variability makes it near impossible for one round to be better than another. The thousands of shootings that happen each year have shown us this. The thousands of hospital GSW admissions have shown us this. The science behind human anatomy and physiology has shown us this. The question is answered.
Truly amazing, isn't it? No data to look at, and you know what it shows?the variability makes it near impossible for one round to be better than another
As you know, there are also two other types of studies: those that look at what your actually interested in (like effectiveness and safety of cancer drug in a human cancer victim), and those that look at a proxy for what your interested in (like effectiveness of a cancer drug in a Petri dish). Trouble is, the Petri dish is a very limited approximation of a human being. Kinda like a block of gelatin is a very limited approximation of a human attacker.I majored in psychology, and you basically have two types of studies: experimental and observational.
There are people who try to take the gello and make it more realistic, like brassfetcher with the bone plate tests or Mythbusters when they do a full-on pig guts, gello, and fake bone statue. Those require more materials, however, and people go to plain gello blocks for simplicity and cost.
Of course not. Because cancer drug testers have more sense than current bullet testers. That was kinda my point?LH, that isn't how drug testing works.
Actually, no you don't. You do animal studies (if you have an animal model). Then, Phase 0 human pharmacodynamics studies. Then, you set up Phase I safety studies. Controls are typically not used until Phase II (and occasionally, not then). Large double-blind, randomized control studies are Phase III. And after approval, the manufacturers are REQUIRED to keep track of adverse events, and often to conduct post-market studies.After you get good results in the petri dish, you set up a double-blind study
If you say so!A better example is Mythbusters.
If PDs have Bullet Boards, I am unaware of it.
Bullets are about using lethal force on human lethal force attackers. In order to preserve innocent human life. The bullets have to be delivered in a targeted manner to be effective. If they don't work well, then the defender's (or LEO's) life is put at additional risk.medicine is about healing
Sounds exactly like post-market studies and adverse reaction surveillance.random occurrences in which the data is compiled afterward.
Trouble is, the Petri dish is a very limited approximation of a human being. Kinda like a block of gelatin is a very limited approximation of a human attacker.
You are either being ridiculous, or haven't followed the thread, I think.Are arguing against a straw man of their own creation.
So: I am supposed to use gelatin results to select calibers and loads for use in SD and police shootings, even while I must (apparently, according to you) simultaneously accept the fact that the loads' gel results are completely unpredictive of their performance in such shootings...Gelatin tests do not show and cannot show what any bullet will do in a gun fight..
Intriguing; novel. How would this be an improvement over gel?computer simulation
....neither is a very good set of data to come to an empirical conclusion, but both do offer insight. I just think anecdotes give less insight because of the sheer amount of variables that can't be controlled in a real world shooting. Gello you are looking at a very controlled scenario and a potential for a lot more rounds downrange.
I honestly think that (barring a severe human rights violation on the part of the tester) the only way we can really different calibers is computer simulation.