View Single Post
Old October 4, 2012, 06:40 PM   #20
481
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2011
Posts: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by SRH970:
M&S were two former LEO's that tried to quantify something that many talked about but had never bothered to actually study.

The M&S works are valuable in the sense that many can along to decry them but few would bother to try to come up with better information. They tried to compile the available information from actual documented shootings and make something useful out of it.

The noisiest critic was Maarten van Maanen of the now defunct International Wound Ballistics Association. See Section 71

Strangely, members of the IWBA were generally from the camp knows as Jello Junkies.
van Maanen's was a very thorough statistical analysis of M&S's "study".

There are others, I've posted them elsewhere on this 'site, but they seem to be a good fit here:

Too Good to be True, Wishful Thinking?, The Best Defense by M. Fackler and C.E. Peters

Discrepancies in the Marshall & Sanow "Data Base": An Evaluation Over Time by M. van Maanan

Sanow Strikes (Out) Again by D. MacPherson


There used to be a time when I thought that M&S's "study" should be struck from the 'net for all of its falsity, but now I'd just as soon see it remain as an example for all of exactly what a fraudulent statistical model looks like.
__________________
My favorite "gun" book -

QUANTITATIVE AMMUNITION SELECTION
481 is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04134 seconds with 7 queries