Its been years since I studied statistics but I still have my copy of
"How to Lie With Statistics" by Darrell Huff. Well worth reading.
Anyway, M&S were very selective in chosing which cases to include in their study. Being very selective gave them the opportunity to 'prove' any point they desired. For that reason alone, I think the M&S study should be trashed.
You wrote:My criteria for answering your question is that you summarize the analysis you have in mind in your own words. You posted references but have not summarized the points in your own words. I have several purposes is having this as a requirement for answering a question:
1. To keep the scope of the discussion limited to the points you find most compelling.
2. Not to waste my time by answering every objection to M&S that has been published simply because someone posts a reference. If you take the time to summarize the points in the reference, I will take the time to answer.
3. To ensure you understand what the reference is really saying. If you can't demonstrate an accurate understanding of the reference, you won't be able to understand a sound reply either.
4. If you summarize the important points, you cannot turn around and claim that I have committed the strawman fallacy by answering issues that the original author did not really raise or that are not the most important points.
Now we need to "limit" discussion of a subject with "relatively little evidence" so we won't waste your time? I can be lazy too.There is relatively little evidence regarding fabrication of the data.
Please show me convincingly that they are not? Marshall provides the anecdotes as examples of one-shot stopping power successes and failures.Please show convincingly that the shooting events in these descriptions were included as data points in the OSS data set.
Please show me convincingly that they are not? Marshall provides the anecdotes as examples of one-shot stopping power successes and failures.
(with a shiv made from his own hardened feces)
On the contrary, the Strasbourg finding that a pressure wave plays an important role in incapacitation and injury has considerable support both in work that was published before and in later experimental work.
Consider:
Göransson AM, Ingvar DH, Kutyna F: "Remote Cerebral Effects on EEG in High-Energy Missile Trauma". The Journal of Trauma. 28(1 Supplement):S204-S205; January 1988.
Suneson A, Hansson HA, Kjellström BT, Lycke E, and Seeman T: "Pressure Waves by High Energy Missile Impair Respiration of Cultured Dorsal Root Ganglion Cells". The Journal of Trauma. 30(4):484-488; 1990.
Suneson A, Hansson HA, Seeman T: "Pressure Wave Injuries to the Nervous System Caused by High Energy Missile Extremity Impact: Part II. Distant Effects on the Central Nervous System. A Light and Electron Microscopic Study on Pigs". The Journal of Trauma. 30(3):295-306; 1990.
Suneson A, Hansson HA, Seeman T: "Pressure Wave Injuries to the Nervous System Caused by High Energy Missile Extremity Impact: Part I. Local and Distant Effects on the Peripheral Nervous System. A Light and Electron Microscopic Study on Pigs". The Journal of Trauma. 30(3):281-294; 1990.
Suneson A, Hansson HA, Lycke E: "Pressure Wave Injuries to Rat Dorsal Cell Ganglion Root Cells in Culture Caused by High Energy Missiles". The Journal of Trauma. 29(1):10-18; 1989.
Suneson A, Hansson HA, Seeman T: "Central and Peripheral Nervous Damage Following High-Energy Missile Wounds in the Thigh". The Journal of Trauma. 28(1 Supplement):S197-S203; January 1988.
Suneson A, Hansson HA, Seeman T: "Peripheral High-Energy Missile Hits Cause Pressure Changes and Damage to the Nervous System: Experimental Studies on Pigs". The Journal of Trauma. 27(7):782-789; 1987.
Wang Q,Wang Z, Zhu P, Jiang J: “Alterations of the Myelin Basic Protein and Ultrastructure in the Limbic System and the Early Stage of Trauma-Related Stress Disorder in Dogs. " The Journal of Trauma. 56(3):604-610; 2004.
Toth Z, Hollrigel G, Gorcs T, and Soltesz I: “Instantaneous Perturbation of Dentate Interneuronal Networks by a Pressure Wave Transient Delivered to the Neocortex.” The Journal of Neuroscience, 17(7);8106-8117; 1997.
Thompson HJ, Lif????z J, Marklund N, Grady MS, Graham DI, Hovda DA, McIntosh TK, “Lateral Fluid Percussion Brain Injury: A 15-Year Review and Evaluation”, Journal of Neurotrauma, 22(1):42-75 (2005).
Wang Q,Wang Z, Zhu P, Jiang J: “Alterations of the Myelin Basic Protein and Ultrastructure in the Limbic System and the Early Stage of Trauma-Related Stress Disorder in Dogs. " The Journal of Trauma. 56(3):604-610; 2004.
Knudsen SK, Oen EO: “Blast-induced neurotrauma in whales.” Neurosci Res. 46(3): 377-386 (2003).
MC, all of the articles you cited except Thompson HJ et al refer to nervous system trauma. Many of the articles are specific to CNS trauma. Nervous tissue is highly cellular, generally lacks elasticity, and is quite fragile compared to most other tissue types.
So what.
Most everyone here agrees that a CNS hit is likely to be the proverbial one shot stop.
I believe one of the main problems of the M&S studies lies with the subjective methods by which the data were collected.
This coupled with many of the inferences that don't jibe with the much more comprehensive FBI stats make many of M&S's conclusions highly suspect.
That's EXACTLY what makes it vulnerable to the kind of trauma that muscle tissue and other tough, elastic tissues are practically immune to.Nervous tissue is highly cellular, generally lacks elasticity, and is quite fragile compared to most other tissue types.
The main premise of the pressure wave theory (as I understand it) is that CNS tissue can be damaged WITHOUT a CNS hit due to its fragility and lack of elasticity.Most everyone here agrees that a CNS hit is likely to be the proverbial one shot stop.
That's a mighty big leap of faith on your part.Actually, all the papers refer to nervous system trauma, but they all suggest mechanisms for creating neural trauma by pressure wave mechanisms without directly hitting the CNS.
So, it is merely an implication--merely a theory that is "suggested" or "implied" to those who want to be it in the first place. It is a long way a proven, reproducable fact.The implication is that sufficiently large pressure waves can create sufficient neural trauma to contribute to rapid incapacitation without a direct hit to the CNS.
Nearly every cartridge listing presents example incidents of “success” and “failure.”You are mistaken. These accounts are provided as examples of "actual street results." Your representation of them as "one-shot stopping power successes and failures" is absurd.
Both examples are listed under “Federal .357 SIG 125-grain Failure.”Another suspect you refer to was hit three times in the upper thoracic cavity. A third suspect in one of the accounts you referenced was hit once in the throat and once in the groin. These shootings clearly do not meet the selection criteria, so it is clear that they were not included in the OSS data set.
These are examples in which I question either Marshall’s classification of the shooting as a one-shot stop or his ability to classify the shooting when there is no eyewitness. It's reasonable to assume that similar situations exist throughout his findings.How can you criticize the data set based on shooting events which clearly were not included?
You’re jumping to conclusions. I’m well aware that many of the “actual street results” anecdotes do not fit the criteria.Your presupposition that every account described in the M&S books was included in the OSS data set is clearly false.
AndThese shooting event descriptions are of no more scientific value…
Of course they’re of “scientific value.” They provide insight to the quality of his interpretation.These accounts of shooting events neither add to nor detract from the scientific value and validity of the OSS data presented elsewhere in the M&S books.
As most nerves in the abdomen/thorax are efferent, the "neural trauma" effect is not transmitted to the CNS. Of afferent nerves, the trauma causes the nerves to quit working or to work less effectively (such as the numbness and tingling produced in the lower arm when one bumps the "funny bone").Actually, all the papers refer to nervous system trauma, but they all suggest mechanisms for creating neural trauma by pressure wave mechanisms without directly hitting the CNS.
The implication is that sufficiently large pressure waves can create sufficient neural trauma to contribute to rapid incapacitation without a direct hit to the CNS.
Nearly every cartridge listing presents example incidents of “success” and “failure.”
These are examples in which I question either Marshall’s classification of the shooting as a one-shot stop or his ability to classify the shooting when there is no eyewitness. It's reasonable to assume that similar situations exist throughout his findings.
Of course they’re of “scientific value.” They provide insight to the quality of his interpretation.
As most nerves in the abdomen/thorax are efferent, the "neural trauma" effect is not transmitted to the CNS. Of afferent nerves, the trauma causes the nerves to quit working or to work less effectively (such as the numbness and tingling produced in the lower arm when one bumps the "funny bone").
So, it is merely an implication--merely a theory that is "suggested" or "implied" to those who want to be it in the first place. It is a long way a proven, reproducable fact.
AndThe authors do not specifically classify events in these brief descriptions as "success." It is your interpretation (rather than an explicit statement by the authors) that the unclassified events should be considered as "success."
I refer you to P 241:You might have a case if these events were explicitly labeled as "success." However, they aren't. In particular, the event described on p242-243 is not explicitly classified as a success. This provides insight to the quality of your reading comprehension.
How can one determine with certainty if the gunshot wound recipient was rendered incapable of "striking another blow?" One cannot. Simply because the badguy did not fire another shot does not mean he was incapacitated and incapable of firing another shot.The presence of an eyewitness is not always necessary...
One experiences flaccid paralysis. However, falling down is not "incapacitation." Alexandria, VA, police learned this the hard way when one of their snipers shot Jamie Martin Wise squarely in the torso with a .223. After he fell to the ground he shot and killed Cpl. Charles Hill, racked his shotgun and shot and wounded Ofcr. Andrew Chechowski.So what happens if the pressure wave hitting the spine works like a bump to the "funny bone" causing the neural path to the lower extremeties to quit working?
Posted by MC in #63Actually, all the papers refer to nervous system trauma, but they all suggest mechanisms for creating neural trauma by pressure wave mechanisms without directly hitting the CNS.
The implication is that sufficiently large pressure waves can create sufficient neural trauma to contribute to rapid incapacitation without a direct hit to the CNS.
Looks like your arguing with yourself, Michael. (Sophistry will do that do you--even though it can work quite in junior college classrooms).The fact that a pressure wave reaching the brain can cause incapacitation and injury without direct (penetrating) brain injury is a well-established, repeatable fact. There are reams of papers in the peer-reviewed journals supporting this.
So, based on your post #58, it is merely an implication--merely a theory that is "suggested" or "implied" to those who want to be it in the first place.
"We have not included any shooting incidents involving either .22 Long Rifle or .25 ACP. Both of these loads are dismal stoppers, and including examples of successful stops with them would give a false sense of confidence that is totally unjustified.
"We have included at least one failure in each caliber due to repeated requests by readers for this information."
This implies to me that unless an example is specifically classified as a "failure" then it is an example of a "successful stop" regardless if one or more hits was landed.
How can one determine with certainty if the gunshot wound recipient was rendered incapable of "striking another blow?" One cannot. Simply because the badguy did not fire another shot does not mean he was incapacitated and incapable of firing another shot.
One experiences flaccid paralysis. However, falling down is not "incapacitation." Alexandria, VA, police learned this the hard way when one of their snipers shot Jamie Martin Wise squarely in the torso with a .223. After he fell to the ground he shot and killed Cpl. Charles Hill, racked his shotgun and shot and wounded Ofcr. Andrew Chechowski.
Nope, you're treading water, Mike. I quoted you verbatim and then made comments on your quote.You are creating a strawman fallacy by misrepresenting my words. I nowhere said that the pressure wave mechanism is "merely" suggested or implied. I used the words "suggested" and "implied" but you changed my meaning by adding the word "merely."
Not exactly--unless you really want to believe B. It really represents a mighty big leap of faith on your. That kind of logic may work in junior college classroom (and may be a good example of the "Peter Principle" at work).A implies B or A suggests B.
This is absolutely consistent with the later statement more equivalent to:
B is well demonstrated and proven.
How about, in the interests of honesty, "My actual wording that these referenced peer-reviewed journal publications "suggest" and "imply" that a pressure wave may cause incapacitation" (particularly if you really want to believe it).My actual wording that these referenced peer-reviewed journal publications "suggest" and "imply" that a pressure wave can cause incapacitation and
There was no contradiction in the original quotes as Mr. Courtney has already pointed out. You created a sort of "contradiction" when you restated/summarized his quote incorrectly.I quoted you verbatim and then made comments on your quote.
I didn't restate or summarize his quote.You created a sort of "contradiction" when you restated/summarized his quote incorrectly.
BUT that's what exactly what Mike did in his post 58. I merely commented on his assumption ("leap of faith") which started my exchange with him.The fact that two statements are CONSISTENT with each other in no way implies that one of the two statements FOLLOWS or can be CONCLUDED from the other.
Here is what YOU said Mr. Courtney said:Actually, all the papers refer to nervous system trauma, but they all suggest mechanisms for creating neural trauma by pressure wave mechanisms without directly hitting the CNS.
The implication is that sufficiently large pressure waves can create sufficient neural trauma to contribute to rapid incapacitation without a direct hit to the CNS.
Among other things, you added the word "merely" in your restatement. That changed the meaning and created a sort of contradiction.So, it is merely an implication--merely a theory that is "suggested" or "implied" to those who want to be it in the first place. It is a long way a proven, reproducable fact.
No. He stated what the ARTICLES say/suggest/imply. You then restated his reply with commentary added and then argued as if YOUR restatement was what HE actually said.BUT that's what exactly what Mike did in his post 58.
BTW, John, when you thrrew in the word "say", you provided an excellent example of what restatement really means (versus comments on a direct statement).He stated what the ARTICLES say/suggest/imply.
I think not. When Mr. Courtney states: "...the papers refer to..." that easily qualifies as his telling us what the articles "say".BTW, John, when you thrrew in the word "say", you provided an excellent example of what restatement really means (versus comments on a direct statement).
to make something understood without expressing it directly
and the definition of suggest might help too:to contain potentially
"Imply" and "suggest," in the context in which they were used remain a long ways from being a provable, reproducible fact. In other words, the papers merely implied (or suggested) what he wants to believe.to mention or imply as a possibility