There's a big, big unstated assumption there: That wounding is the only thing that is materially useful in causing an non-volitional alteration of behavior by an aggressor. A lot of fights have been won, or at least altered in their course, by a punch in the gut. Yet a trauma surgeon who inspected the abdomen of a gut-punched person 30 minutes later might find no wounding whatsoever. Does that mean that hits to the solar plexus don't have any material chance of helping you if you are fighting for your life? No, it most definitely does not mean that. Fackler-ish studies of gunshot victims aren't going to account for any similar effects occurring in gunfights involving humans. But handgun hunter observations of the behavior of animals immediately after being shot can illuminate this area - an area that is totally "dark" to the Fackler wound-centric methodology. Fackler's stuff, and those expanding on it with similar methodologies, is great, and a very useful contribution to the literature. Where thinking goes off the rails is when people insist that this is the only method of study, the totality of terminal ballistics. I'm not sure even Fackler would claim that. Most real scientists are careful to make modest claims. Meanwhile, non-scientists love to fill in the gaps on the things left unsaid.