Posted by
NoVA Shooter:
You asked why the information RustyShackelford was relevant to the discussion. I simply stated that that information was a part of risk analysis.
It is indeed, But it is irrelevant to the discussion of weapons effectiveness or selection.
Okay, I'll bite. First, when a risk is realized, it no longer is a risk, it's an issue. What you've describe is an issue and how issues are dealt with is different than the risk that leads up to it.
Well,
almost.
If the condition exists at the time the analysis is performed, it is an issue.
But a
possible future incident that has not yet occurred--in this case, a possible attack--is a
risk.
Second, risk analyst is more than mitigation. Risk analysis is also about assessment (probability and impact). If a risk has been evaluated to have a low priority (think of a probability/impact matrix) the best approach may be to do nothing at all.
That is all very true.
It could be assessed that the risk of a negative result due to not having a 'more powerful' caliber is such a low priority (probability of a shooting incident is very small and the impact of not having .40 or .45 leading to a negative result is also very small) as not to be considered a viable risk at all. If it's not a viable risk, the it should not be taken into account as part of the decision process in determining caliber.
I do not think so.
One may decide whether mitigate a risk or to accept it unmitigated. But if one chooses to mitigate the risk, attempting to do so in a way that would not be effective would be ludicrous.
Think about it: the likelihood of a fire in the kitchen is very low, but the potential consequences are severe indeed. One may choose to mitigate it, or not. I vote yes.
But
no one in his right mind would decide to have a fire extinguisher that contained only an ounce or two of foam. Right?
Similarly, in the case of the firearm selection, the probability of needing to use one is remote, or even lower. But that is
completely irrelevant to any decision about what would constitute an objective choice of weapon.
Third, in this case, even if the risk is viable, there is mitigation by the fact that the lower cost and higher capacity caliber will offset the potential 'low power' of 9mm by providing more training and more rounds in the very off chance of a shooting incident.
Absolutely, and that's good thinking.
Let us all understand that the FBI has already evaluated the requirements for terminal ballistics.
The 9MM, with today's ammunition, meets their requirements fully. The report that started this thread brings into the discussion the other things that you mention.
If I were performing the risk analysis, I would include, in the delineation of risks identified, the risk that an officer (or defender) would not be able to fire controlled shots rapidly enough; the risk that he or she would run out of ammunition too soon; and a few others.
But the fact of the extremely low incidence of officers or civilians needing to employ weapons in the first place would not enter into the selection process for a handgun--at all.
Now, if one were to expand the scope of the systems analysis to encompass the possibility of having to engage miscreants at a distance, or to shoot through armor, or to engage in extended combat, that would bring other things into the analysis.
And the first thing would be to decide wether to mitigate those risks or to accept them unmitigated.
But in the case of the FBI handgun, the decision to allow them to carry was made in 1934.
My decision to carry concealed was made in 2008, when it finally became lawful for me to do so. I do have to admit that the choice of my first carry piece was made in part on the basis of my assessment of the very low likelihood that I would have to use it.
The someone here pointed out the error of my thinking. I should have figured that out for myself.
The question at hand at the time was capacity.
)
