seeker_two
Member
I don't see how that's a better measure than, you know, whether or not the officer died.
Because the point isn't whether the officer died (b/c much of the time that happens when the officer never fires a shot). The point is how many shots it actually takes to stop a violent attack. With the advancements in ammo, I don't believe that it takes more shots to stop an attacker now than it did then. What I do think is that we believe that we have to shoot more than we may actually need to stop an attack.
If two shots from a .38Spl or .357Mag were proving enough to stop attackers back then, why would they not work now?...