Originally Posted by wayneinFL:
Both those studies have flawed methodologies.
Of course they are.
I never said that the Wolberg research article was perfect. Both studies are "flawed", one (M&S) is "contrived". There is a difference.
Taken from the link provided above-
These greater than 100% stopping percentage or negative numbers (showing mysterious disappearing shootings) are fairly described as misrepresentations because they demonstrate conclusively that the Marshall & Sanow "data base" is not as it has been claimed to be. Specifically:
Marshall & Sanow have claimed to have continuously collected their "data base" of shootings over time; this makes having fewer shootings in particular caliber and load combinations at later dates impossible, but eight such conditions exist in their "data base."
Marshall & Sanow have eight particular caliber and load combinations that show a completely impossible greater than 100% "one-shot stop" percentages in their "data base".