Rhino
New member
I never said wounding equated to stopping and killing. Sometimes it does. Sometimes it doesn't. All I did was cite the 8% figure that comes from the exact same source your 2 million figure comes from.No, you were pointing out, and I'll quote you, “ (8%) of those wound or kill their attacker.” Wounding is not stopping and killing does not stop until the combatant dies or is unconscious, which could be minutes or hours later. Enough time to kill you too.
.
No, I cited a physiological stop without a CNS hit or massive blood loss. Massive shock, physiological, not psychological, does occur without massive blood loss and without damage to the central nervous system. Such shock can and often does incapacitate people. Sometimes they die from it when their wound wasn't even physically a mortal one. Ask anyone who works in emergency medicine. I've witnessed it more than once. And like I said before, if an attacker is chasing you with a knife, a shot that severs his femur will indeed stop the threat in most cases. So yes, you can incapacitate someone without massive blood loss and without a CNS hit. It happens fairly regularly, and it often depends on the nature of the threat itself, and sometimes the circumstances involved as well, but it most certainly happens.As far as your unrelated statement here, read what I said again. That is a psychological stop, not physiological. That’s not stopping power. That’s luck of the draw that the combatant had a weak constitution and will be out of the fight for a psychological reason. Depend on that or any psychological stop and you’ll get canceled in a hardcore violent encounter. Sometimes, in fact, most of the time people are stopped by just the sight of a gun. If someone relies on that or your example above, and it’s on with a hardcore criminal, they are going to wind up cold.
.
Once again you left out the remark just prior to that which set the context for that paragraph. Patrick was talking about how to reliably force incapacitation. He isn't saying that's the only way to do it, just that it's the only way to do it reliably. You have to understand that Patrick isn't evaluating the stopping of a threat. He's evaluating the capacity to cause the complete disruption of a body to function. But in a self defense scenario, a complete loss of function is often not necessary to stop a threat. You also have to keep in mind that Patrick's study specifically excluded hits that were not in the torso. He was evaluating only the specific wounding effects of handguns in torso hits, and the reliability of those hits in incapacitating a person. He excluded all else. He did not evaluate stopping a threat because threats are different in every scenario and thus cannot be reliably analyzed with statistical certainty. He mentions that on page 10. And yet again, Patrick still debunks your earlier statement that handgun stopping power doesn't exist. If the FBI really believed that they wouldn't be carrying handguns.The FBI's paper throws your idea right out the window by stating, "Failing a hit to the central nervous system, massive bleeding from holes in the heart or major blood vessels of the torso causing circulatory collapse is the only other way to force incapacitation upon an adversary and this takes time."
.
True enough. You didn't say kill. You said:Your quote here shows best that you still don't get it. Mortality is not stopping power. Beyond the fact that statically most people don’t even die when shot with a handgun, I have answered this several times here:
--- "Many, if not most seasoned combat veterans believe there is no stopping power in any small arms, and certainty it doesn’t exist in a handgun. " ---
So I'll just repeat the comment I said earlier and substitute "stopping" for "killing" since it doesn't really make any difference.
It does make me wonder how people have been stopping other people with small arms for centuries if they have no stopping power.
Better?
.
Not me. I stated several times that I shoot until the threat stops. You don't think handguns have any stopping power, so for all I know you don't even carry a gun. Or maybe you rely on it to just scare the bad guy away, as you mentioned before. That would make me far safer than you.So again, mortality is irrelevant. The guy you shot lived for a few minutes or even seconds – enough time to kill you and then died. But he is dead and you stopped him with your "stopping power", right? Well, so are you.
.
Nice try, but we already posted the actual quote from the author that he was talking about being a myth was the concept of "reliable and reproducible" incapacitation. I think everyone familiar with guns and self defense already knew they couldn't simply rely on a single torso hit to stop someone, so that statement doesn't exactly come as a surprise.I thought quantum leap was only a tv show. I don't even know why I am going to answer your attempt to grasp at straws, but here goes. So your stopping power isn’t reliable or reproducible. That’s not stopping power. Hope and prayer aren’t stopping power. It’s a myth and those are the author’s exact words.
.
I know. I already quoted it. Reliable and reproducible, just like I said.The entire quote is here:
.
That isn't the point you made. What you said isn't what Patrick said. He said reliable and reproducible incapacitation with a handgun without those hits was a myth. You said all incapacitation with a handgun without those hits was a myth. That's two very different things.I have already made the point of the first part of that quote here:
.
Oh good, because I get tired of repeating myself.You have argued with all of the above. There is no need to post a voluminous irrelevant narrative about “writing styles”, “logical extrapolation”, a “dichotomy I pointed out”, and all the other attempts to obfuscate and distract from disproving the statement that handgun stopping power is a myth.
.
I never once said I knew more than them. I just apparently understand what they wrote better. Try this paragraph:I didn’t invent this, I learn from experience or people smarter than me. It’s rather arrogant to believe you are smarter and know more than experienced combat veterans, world operators and the DOJ/FBI.
.
"The human target can be reliably incapacitated only by disrupting or destroying the brain or upper spinal cord. Absent that, incapacitation is subject to a host of varibles, the most important of which are beyond the control of the shooter. Incapacitation becomes an eventual event, not necessarily an immediate one."
.
Notice how Patrick mentions variables outside hits to the CNS system and that incapacitation is "not necessarily" immediate in such hits, meaning that it still can be immediate in some cases. He doesn't include any incapacitations from such hits as "reliable and reproducible" because those variables make it impossible to do so.
.
Great. That's why I invited you to clarify. It didn't make sense to me that you would say that either, so I'm glad to hear you say it isn't so.You read it several times? Okay, go ahead and quote me where I said, “caliber and ammunition makes no difference.” The fact is, in my very first post I said it did make a difference. A fact that you recognized this by your post right above this post here:
.
So you want to argue even when I agree with you? Really?But you want people to think you really believe I consider, “caliber and ammunition makes no difference” Making statements like that simply discredits you and what you write.
.
I see no reason to. You gave me the clarification I asked for. I have no problem chalking that up to a misunderstanding, just as I said.So keep posting how I advocate unloaded guns, or how I believe there is no difference between guns or ammunition, that a handgun or the ammo in it has no use, and all the other nonsense you claim I said. The reader can see in just the few posts in this thread alone - or anywhere else - that I never said or even remotely intimated such absurdities, and when they do, what do you think they will think of you?
.
I never said they were wrong. They're right. They carry handguns, so obviously they believe they have some stopping power. Demonstration complete.You want to have a civil dialog with me now? You’re a little late for that. You stared the confrontational post from the get-go. But, okay, I’ll give it a shot.
.
Go ahead and demonstrate how the FBI is wrong and a handgun has stopping power.
.
That right there may be the crux of this problem. Do you really define stopping power as a one shot stop? If so, then that's the root of this misunderstanding. I've never seen anyone define it that way. To most people I know stopping power is not an absolute (actually to everyone). It is a measure on a graduated scale, i.e., a 25 caliber would have low stopping power in relation to a 45 ACP. If you were trying to say all along that the one shot stop is a myth, then I really wish you would have explained that. One shot stops do sometimes occur, but as far as any particular type of ammunition being considered a 'one shot stopper', that is indeed a myth. The way you've been sounding in this thread was that handguns had no stopping power at all, as if they were useless, or that ammunition made no difference. that's why I was disagreeing.So far, if I use your analogies all I come up with scary power and mortality power. Stopping power is just that, one shot stop......
.
I don't agree that it must be a physiological stop, but I agree that it has to be a stop. When presented with a threat, any stop is acceptable if the threat is neutralized....and that stop must be a physiological stop. Now don’t back peddle and play with words.
.
I already did in post #58. Read page 11 of Patrick's report, AMMUNTITON SELECTION CRITERIA. He details the kind of ammunition needed for the most consistent stops. It deals directly with velocities, projectile weights, kinetic energy and the like. He disdains slang such as "knockdown power" because he equates that to the Hollywood myth of gunshots knocking people down or sending them across rooms, etc. I agree with him about Hollywood. But a lot of people use that term loosely as a synonym for stopping power (not the one shot stop kind), so a lot of people would equate that directly to ammunition selection, and specifically power.In my first response to you I said:
.
You took exception to that, so don’t play with semantics. Show how any of that is relevant with a handgun in a SD scenario.