Originally Posted by JohnR2
That's why I included a link to the whole article, you have to read the whole article
to understand what the data tells us. That is also, by the way, why any public opinion poll must be taken with a huge grain of salt; you have to understand the data to understand the results. https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7866
I read it. I still dont see how he came to those conclusions. As the number of victims shot rises, so do the number of misses,, thus diluting the data.
I dont see why you would use miss data anyway. Thats not the point. Stopping power was.
His .32 data makes no sense at all to me.
32. = 25 shot, 21% fatal, 60% incapacitated.
357= 105 shot, 34% fatal, 91% incapacitated.
9mm= 456 shot, 24% fatal, 87% incapacitated.
How can he possibly rate a .32 better than a 357 ?
By his own data, its impossible. And even with the diluted numbers of 25 versus 105. Thats 4 X's more 357 data to compare,, so not really fair, but the 357 still wins hands down. The 357 is the same 91% incapacitated as the rifle data which sound right. So WHY is the 357 not rated high as the rifle?
The 9mm versus 357 sounds more to par with much similar results, as I think they are and would / should be. Which shoots the FBI data in the butt.
I certainly cannot see where he came to his conclusions for his graph chart. .
But it is what it is I guess. He is prolly sum harvard educated rocket scientist. And I aint.
But 2 + 2 still equal 4 in my world.