No it wasn't, go read the article? Like a perp is going to tell which caliber whizzed by his ear? It wasn't even talking about wounds.
Oh yes it was! I was referring to this:
"The reader asked me to explain why I considered the .22 stops to be more likely “psychological stops” as opposed to physical incapacitations. That’s easy to explain ... The problem is the historic lack of penetration in the .22 round.
"If the .22 bullet doesn’t cause CNS disruption or extensive blood loss, it won’t physically incapacitate an attacker. That’s why I commented that the .22 stops are likely to be more psychological in nature."
You seem to be putting a lot of stock in this:
"...the difference between police and armed citizen gunfights. My friend Claude Werner often points out that when a criminal is involved in a gunfight with the police, the stakes are higher. The criminal knows that the cops won’t stop until he’s dead or in jail. That’s not true with a gunfight against an armed citizen. The armed citizen just wants a break in the fight. If he can cause the criminal to flee, he wins and stops shooting.
"When criminals fight the police, they are likely to fight harder and take more rounds before giving up, because they know giving up equals a long prison sentence."
There is no objective evidence that supports that idea, and it does not begin to support your contention that attackers are more likely to flee from civilians than from police officers. It is about
giving up.
"Giving up" is not what you have been discussing. You have been discussing
fleeing. People flee from law enforcement officers all the time, and since 1987, the police have been forbidden from shooting at fleeing suspects except under the rarest of circumstances.
Once police officers have caught up with criminals who have fled, they are limited to the use of less lethal compliance tools to take them into custody. They may only resort to deadly force in self defense. That is a rare occurrence.
Now, back to the discussion of attackers fleeing from civilians. Yes, they may do that,
if the defender is not located between the attacker and the exit, or
if the attacker does not need the defender's car for his departure, or
if he can stop shooting without being shot.
Otherwise, it would be reasonable to expect them to keep shooting.
You have presented this line of discussion to somehow support the idea that a .38 Special is usually no less effective for self defense than a .357 Magnum for self defense.
I happen to agree with that conclusion, but not for the came reasons.
I have been engaged in a number of defensive gun use incidents. I did not fire--it was abundantly clear to the violent criminal actors that they would stand little chance if I fired.
I did not want a "break in the fight". There were no "fights". They could not know what I might have wanted. They had nt way of knowing that I would allow them to depart--until I ordered them out, only I knew that.
