Remind me again why 9mm is considered enough for self defense but .32 acp caliber guns are considered mouse guns only?
>>27958055
What I gather from this is that if you CC anything but a shotgun or rifle you're retarded.
Given the amount of evidence to the contrary, we can assume that something is amiss. Maybe the fact that this information doesn't even remotely match the information provided by the FBI, and no source is provided.
Statistics like this are laughably flawed and totally worthless.
The torso and head are not singular objects, they are containers that house many objects. The specific structures which are hit by the penetrating projectile are what determine physiological incapacitation occurring or not.
>>27958055
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power
he says himself that he doubts the accuracy of the data on .25 .32 and .45 because he didnt have enough data. but, yes, in general most handgun calibers incapacitate at about the same rate
>>27958180
i meant .44, not .45
>>27958180
>about the same rate
Holy shit, magnum 357 has a 30% higher incapacitation rate than the 9mm. Is not even close to the same rate.
>>27958263
And its still 100% statistically worthless.
One person can shoot a target "center mass" and only pierce a lung. Air filling the chest cavity doesn't happen instantly, and it won't cause physiological incapacitation.
Another person can shoot a target "center mass" and hit the upper CNS. That would cause instant physiological incapacitation.
This data is meaningless because its so vague. Trying to draw any conclusion from it whatsoever is something only a retard would do.
>>27958317
>And its still 100% statistically worthless.
Why? What's the p-value?
>One person can shoot a target "center mass" and only pierce a lung. Air filling the chest cavity doesn't happen instantly, and it won't cause physiological incapacitation.
>Another person can shoot a target "center mass" and hit the upper CNS. That would cause instant physiological incapacitation.
Agree but if you have a large sample size this is absolutely irrelevant.
You don't seem to understand how statistics work though.
>>27958263
9mm- ~35% incapacitating shots
357- ~44% incapacitating shots
even if what you said wasnt intentionally misleading, it makes next to no difference after a few rounds.
>>27958317
that would be a completely viable argument if people were able to pick which organ they wanted to shoot in a self defense situation. in real life most people either aim for the torso or the head. you cant control for every variable in these situations. but the article also says that a large percentage of attackers stop after a single shot because of the psychological effects and its fairly obvious that any caliber will have this effect.
>>27958340
>Agree but if you have a large sample size this is absolutely irrelevant.
A dozen people failing to hit vital structures with numerous calibers tells you nothing. .22lr is the same as .44mag if you hit nothing vital.
YOU do not understand statistics in the least.
>>27958340
No, it really isn't (not that guy). Shot placement is what kills, what type of bullet it is is often not very relevant. A .22 will kill if it hits CNS or vital organs, .50 BMG might not if it hits the shoulder or whatnot.
>>27958354
>A dozen people failing to hit vital structures with numerous calibers tells you nothing. .22lr is the same as .44mag if you hit nothing vital.
You are retarded and completely miss the point.
Actually I am going to pretend that you are either underage or a troll. Bye.
>>27958364
No one is discussing that at all, throwing true statements not related to the topic doesn't make you right. Do you even understand the discussion or why what you are saying is completely irrelevant to the case?
>>27958366
Good to see you learned it was time to shut your fucking stupid mouth so early, shit for brains.
Gathering and collecting irrelevant data does not ever lead to a meaningful conclusion, no matter what your sample size is.
It is statistically worthless.
>>27958055
because the law is not perfect
>>27958055
the usage and application is pretty relevant.
i'd guess this is hospital data, which means the shootings listed here could be from many different ranges and situations. if your.32 data is skewed toward, say, executions then the table is significantly less relevant to our applications
>>27958424
>I also excluded all cases of accidental shootings or suicides. Every shot in this study took place during a military battle or an altercation with a criminal.
Nah, 32 is fine.
Sup
>>27958317
>>27958366
>>27958392
This is as brain dead as saying "airbags don't help because the speed that your car crashes is more important" "if your car crashes at 200 mph you'll die anyways "A dozen people failing to crash at 200 mph tells you nothing" "crashing at a lower speed is much more important than having an airbag".
/k/ is being braindead again and doesn't understand numbers or statistics but I am not surprised since the average age here is 20.
>>27958501
>I can't make an argument so I present a false paradigm as if its representative
Hilarious.
>>27958532
>social sciences major using words that he doesn't understand
Because small sample size and variables not accounted for.
