[mavracer]

If a handgun bullet expands properly, penetrates adequately, and strikes the right place in a human body, there is no reason to believe that a bullet of the same size fired at a somewhat higher velocity into the same person in the same way will be more effective-- thus the comment, correct in that context, "magnum loads in a revolver add no incapacitation benefit".

But if one is using the handgun to take game or to defend against larger animals, the statement would not be true.

That is addressed in post #45: "Another thing, while the 9mm Parabellum is considered excellent for shooting people, its not well thought of for shooting anything else, large or small, and the .357 Magnum is well regarded in that respect".

The fact that someone may not have "shot any living creatures with both" does not change the argument or alter the underlying facts. Living creatures of different species react differently.

Nor would it be necessary to shoot different living creatures with both to learn something. A person who shoots a large bear with a 9mm and finds the penetration inaduequate has all he or she needs in the way of experience to conclude that a magnum would likely have been better. And an officer who shoots a person at a challenging angle that requires considerable penetration, and whose shots effect the necessary penetration under the circumstance with something other than a magnum, need not then shoot a person with a magnum to find it was not more effective.

There is so much wrong in that post I don't even know where to start.

You are correct with the last statement and you prove it out. A person doesn't have to have any actual knowledge about a subject to draw a conclusion. However someone who's without the knowledge and facts will usually draw an incorrect conclusion.