Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CrowHunter
Yes, it is a probabalistic model, all models are. There is no way to account for an infinite number of variable in any calculation. So you look at the variables that are statistically probable and discount the others as negligable either in likelihood or magnitude. Since it is impossible have a working model of Mars or the Moon here on earth, they had to make "assumptions" based on statistics and model them as part of their calculations.
|
Looks like NASA's model works well enough. The proposed one under discussion and unproven as it stands, not so much.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CrowHunter
Because "common sense" isn't really all that common. I can guarantee you that at least 75% of the CCW carriers (probably more than that based on the cross section of posters I have seen reading on this forum) in the US have never even thought about what they would do if they had to shoot one handed due to injury or other circumstances and firmly believe that they will do "just as good" in real life as they do on a static range AND most of them probably CAN'T shoot as good as your average police officer.
|
You don't need a model for that. If I am disabled (to some varying extent), by something then my abilities suffer. To what extent is an unknown. The model has no way to account for a condition like this unless you make an assumption as to how much you will be disabled. More guesswork.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CrowHunter
Therefore, if you take the average hit percentage of police officers and apply it statistically only taking into account the factors of the number of rounds and hit percentage and see that it is statistically nearly impossible to prevail with only 5 shots, maybe someone will take that to heart and decide to practice realistically, and arm themselves realistically and use tactics best suited to their weapon of choice.
I don't see why anyone would have issue with this. It isn't supposed to be reality. But if it makes just one single person do something to improve their chances in real life, it wasn't a waste of time.
|
I am sure the figures, whatever one enters, will always work out. The sum or product of two given numbers will always be the same. It's the numerous, and often dubious, underlying assumptions that make this particular specimen a loser.