I'm the one pointing out that handgun rounds do that, sometimes instantaneously, even without massive blood loss or a direct hit to the central nervous system. You're saying they don't.
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.
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.
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."
It does make me wonder how people have been killing other people with small arms for centuries if they have no stopping power.
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:
2700 said:
please detail the tactical similarity in someone dying on an operating table three hours later, or even three minutes after you shoot them as apposed to physiologicaly stopping them immediately. Mortality is immaterial.
And here:
2700 said:
Wounding or mortality 3 hours or three minutes after being shot, at any percentage, much less 8% is irrelevant. Immediately stopping a hostile is. You continue to miss that point.
And here:
2700 said:
Relying on a handgun to physiologically stop a hostile outside of a CNS hit, we could be looking at several minutes of fight.
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.
What Patrick is calling a myth is the "reliable and reproducible" part, not the handgun stopping power part.
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.
That sentence doesn't start with "The concept..." by the way.
The entire quote is here:
With the exception of hits to the brain, or upper spinal cord, the concept of reliable and reproducible immediate incapacitation of the human target by gunshot wounds to the torso is a myth.
I have already made the point of the first part of that quote here:
2700 said:
A CNS shot is the only event with a handgun that will physiologically stop a person immediately with one shot and a .22lr can accomplish that.
So tell me, with your “stopping power” are you going to make all your shots brainstem and upper spinal? Failing that, there is no one shot stop - ergo, no stopping power. Let’s read more on the FBI’s paper:
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.
I detailed the same here:
2700 said:
it occurs with either a CNS interruption or enough blood loss for BP to drop sufficiently and the body shuts down.
2700 said:
Relying on a handgun to physiologically stop a hostile outside of a CNS hit, we could be looking at several minutes of fight.
Reading on, the FBI states:
For example, there is sufficient oxygen within the brain to support full, voluntary action for 10-15 seconds after the heart has been destroyed.
I detailed the same here:
2700 said:
Even with a direct hit to the heart, a person has the ability to fight for several seconds – 8, 10, or more. For many, even a few seconds can be a very long and lethal amount of time in a h2h fight.
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 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.
Then I guess I didn't misinterpret you. And I have gone back and read it. Several times. It's kind of hard to believe that someone who supposedly carries a handgun, claims that their stopping power is a myth, the caliber and ammunition makes no difference, and they're only useful for scaring people away.
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:
I'd also have to agree with 2700 that a 9mm would be a better choice during winter…
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.
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?
We can both do better than that I think.
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. 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, and that stop must be a physiological stop. Now don’t back peddle and play with words. In my first response to you I said:
2700 said:
Putting aside semantics, given handgun velocities and projectile weights, with the forgoing, knockdown power, kinetic energy, and stopping power are irrelevant in handguns.
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.