45 vs 9mm interesting test

[44 AMP]

where's the debleat key???

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by JohnKSa
I never said that I rejected it. What I said was that I had not, and was not going to, make any assessment of it and would accept your assessment instead. Are you trying to force me to disagree with your assessment?

Then why did you spend several posts arguing about Ellifritz's definition vs. the "standard" definition? I asked a very simple question and you've spent several posts arguing about definitions rather than simply answering it.

I never said we could. I said that accuracy (normal definition) has a detectable and significant effect on real-world shootings. I guess you can try to figure out how to relate that fact to Ellifritz's study results, but I don't know how and therefore I can't provide the enlightenment you desire.

If we cannot relate the effects of accuracy, by the "standard" or "normal" definition, to Ellifritz's study results, then exactly what real-world shootings are you seeing its effects in? Are you seeing these effects in the Marshall/Sanow study? Some other study? You say that accuracy has detectable and significant effect on real-world shootings, so what shootings, exactly, are you detecting these effects in?

Urey Patrick, the FBI's expert explained why it was going to be very difficult to get answers from studying real-world shootings. I quoted him earlier in the thread on post #75. Fackler was apparently of the same opinion. The problems with getting answers from real-world shootings moved the focus to gel testing.

Since you want to quote Urey Patrick, let's examine his comments in their full context:

https://web.archive.org/web/20051124...f/fbi-hwfe.pdf

Now, it is certainly true that Patrick said that large sample sizes are necessary when studying real world shootings:

Originally posted by Urey Patrick
Because of the extreme number of variables within the human target, and within shooting
situations in general, even a hundred shootings is statistically insignificant. If anything can happen, then
anything will happen, and it is just as likely to occur in your ten shootings as in ten shootings spread over
a thousand incidents. Large sample populations are absolutely necessary.

OK, that makes perfect sense: the larger your sample size, the less the effect of unknown variables and outlier incidents will be on the overall results. Let us, however, look at some of Patrick's other comments:

There is no valid, scientific analysis of actual shooting results in existence, or being pursued to
date. It is an unfortunate vacuum because a wealth of data exists, and new data is being sadly generated
every day.

Although no cartridge is certain to work all the time, surely some will work more often than
others, and any edge is desirable in one’s self defense. This is simple logic. The incidence of failure to
incapacitate will vary with the severity of the wound inflicted.

To judge a caliber’s effectiveness, consider how many people hit with it failed to fall down and
look at where they were hit. Of the successes and failures, analyze how many were hit in vital organs,
rather than how many were killed or not, and correlate that with an account of exactly what they did when
they were hit. Did they fall down, or did they run, fight, shoot, hide, crawl, stare, shrug, give up and
surrender? ONLY falling down is good. All other reactions are failures to incapacitate, evidencing the
ability to act with volition, and thus able to choose to continue to try to inflict harm.

Any shooting incident is a unique event, unconstrained by any natural law or physical order to
follow a predetermined sequence of events or end in predetermined results. What is needed is an edge that
makes the good result more probable than the bad. Science will quantify the information needed to make
the choice to gain that edge. Large numbers (thousands or more) from the street will provide the answer
to the question "How much of an edge?".41 Even if that edge is only 1%, it is not insignificant because
the guy trying to kill you could be in that 1%, and you won’t know it until it is too late.

Given desirable and
reliable penetration, the only way to increase bullet effectiveness is to increase the severity of the wound
by increasing the size of hole made by the bullet. Any bullet which will not penetrate through vital organs
from less than optimal angles is not acceptable. Of those that will penetrate, the edge is always with the
bigger bullet.

While Patrick does certainly criticize how studies up to that point had been conducted (he's mainly attacking Marshall/Sanow though he doesn't specifically name them), I see nothing in his comments to suggest that he thinks study of real world shooting is so difficult as to not be worthwhile. Also, his comments seem to suggest he does believe that caliber can play a significant role in the outcome of a real world shooting though he states that he considers even a 1% "edge" to still be significant.

As far as I can tell, there has been no verifiable systematic live animal testing of handgun rounds since the Thompson-Lagarde tests. Everyone went to gel testing.

OK, and? What's your point? I specifically said "laboratory and/or live animal testing" so as to be inclusive of everything other than study of real world shootings. Was the decade in which the Thompson-Lagarde tests were conducted not to be included in the "decades of trying" you mentioned? How does any of that change the fact that Marshall/Sanow and Ellifritz are the only two studies of real world shootings we have?

This ignores the underlying reason we have so few studies to work with. The cognoscenti abandoned the analysis of real-world shootings as a means to discriminate between calibers in the service pistol class over three decades ago because it was a dead end. It's very difficult or impossible to detect any differences. Patrick made that clear by stating that even 100 shootings wouldn't be enough to produce results, saying "very large numbers of shooting incidents" would be necessary. He threw out the number 1000 but hedged by saying that even with that many shootings, only a small number of shootings out of that 1000 might actually show a real-world benefit to the defender

So why then have you based your argument that the benefits of caliber in real world shooting must insignificant on a method of study that was supposedly abandoned as fruitless? Nothing can be detected in real-world shootings if nobody is bothering to analyze and study them. If nobody can detect the effect of caliber in real-world shootings, it appears to be because very few people are bothering to try.

The whole point of bringing up accuracy in the Ellifritz study is this: If the effects of other significant factors can be obscured by methodology, improper measurement, or lack of measurement then the same is true of the effects of caliber. Conversely, if the effects of caliber being so easily obscured by other factors is proof that it is insignificant, then the same must also be true of any effect which can be easily obscured by other factors. You're applying criteria to the effects of caliber that you are not fairly applying to other factors.

By the way, as a point of interest, he characterized target destruction percentages as 0.07% and 0.04% in one comment which is interesting since that agrees well (as it should) with the estimate I arrived at from crunching a bunch of FBI gel results.

Yes, but he also said this:

Unless the tissue destroyed is located
within the critical areas of the central nervous system, it is physiologically insufficient to force
incapacitation upon the unwilling target.

and this:

It would be interesting to trace a life-sized anatomical drawing on the back of a target, fire 20
rounds at the "center of mass" of the front, then count how many of these optimal, center of mass hits
actually struck the heart, aorta, vena cava, or liver.39 It is rapid hemorrhage from these organs that will
best increase the likelihood of incapacitation. Yet nowhere in the popular press extolling these studies of
real shootings are we told what the bullets hit

Now, perhaps you interpret his comments differently than I do, but it sounds to me like he thinks that the specific organ that is hit is of far greater importance than the quantity of tissue it destroys, which was what I argued to begin with.

At any rate, we are almost certainly not going to get any better studies of real-world shootings than we already have because the experts gave up on that well before the turn of the century once they realized that the real world was making it impossible to show the differences in calibers

Or perhaps, as several including myself have pointed out here, the methodology of the two studies that were done was flawed in that they attempted to over-simplify the results of real world shootings by boiling them down to things like "one-shot-stop" percentages.

Finally, I have to say that I find it rather ironic that you accuse me of "playing games", being "disingenuous", and "stooping to that level" when you yourself have repeatedly taken my comments out of context, thrown about red herrings about wound volumes/weights, and taken us on numerous detours over semantics and definitions to avoid addressing arguments and questions that don't fit your claims. Perhaps you should consider that people who live in glass houses should refrain from throwing stones. Your arguments have painted you into a corner, and your attempts to escape that corner appear, while creative, increasingly desperate.

[JohnKSa]

Finally, I have to say that I find it rather ironic that you accuse me of "playing games", being "disingenuous", and "stooping to that level" when you yourself have repeatedly taken my comments out of context, thrown about red herrings about wound volumes/weights, and taken us on numerous detours over semantics and definitions to avoid addressing arguments and questions that don't fit your claims. Perhaps you should consider that people who live in glass houses should refrain from throwing stones. Your arguments have painted you into a corner, and your attempts to escape that corner appear, while creative, increasingly desperate.

Trying to put words in my mouth is disingenous. Conflating two things after they've been clearly differentiated, by your own words, no less, is disingenuous. Tactics like that are impolite, and more importantly, are not required when a person can support their position with logic and facts.

If you can point out a specific case where you believe I've put words in your mouth, I will either clarify my comments to eliminate the misunderstanding, or apologize.

Wound volume was brought up by someone else on this thread, but I have to say, your idea that it's a red herring is laughable. The FBI spent a lot of time and money coming up with wound volume numbers (Urey Patrick even mentions the topic) to try to assess caliber performance. I mean, you're entitled to your opinion, but the idea that wound volume shouldn't come up in caliber discussions is going to be pretty uncommon.

The definitions issue had to be raised, unfortunately, because the use of words either without understanding their meaning, or in an attempt to bend their meanings to match personal opinion was becoming a problem. You are correct that it shouldn't be necessary to argue about the standard definitions of words in an exchange between adults. It's regrettable that it became necessary here.

Then why did you spend several posts arguing about Ellifritz's definition vs. the "standard" definition? I asked a very simple question and you've spent several posts arguing about definitions rather than simply answering it.

This is the last time I'm going to address this point.

When you initially asked about accuracy (as defined by Ellifritz), I was not paying attention closely enough and I responded with a comment about accuracy (normal definition). I've admitted what happened and that it was my mistake.

I told you this plainly 2 days ago. You tried to re-engage the topic with a post that conflated accuracy as defined by Ellifritz with normal accuracy, tried to imply that I had changed my position on accuracy in spite of my clear explanation of what happened, and also tried to put words in my mouth.

I very clearly told you my position again.

You tried to re-engage, again trying to put words in my mouth. I again stated my position. I will restate it here, just for clarity.

I have made NO assessments of "accuracy as defined by Ellifritz" and have, in fact, made it plain that I am NOT going to even try to assess its effects on real world shootings and that I will accept your assessment of its effects.

Any attempt to make it seem that I've provided an assessment of "accuracy as defined by Ellifritz" from this point forward is evidence of an underhanded attempt to put words in my mouth, or of severe reading comprehension issues.

If we cannot relate the effects of accuracy, by the "standard" or "normal" definition, to Ellifritz's study results, then exactly what real-world shootings are you seeing its effects in?

I'm going to assume you are serious and give you a straight answer. It doesn't take a study to determine that missing the target vs. making a brain shot has an obvious real-world effect on the outcome of a real-world shooting. I don't feel it's controversial to note that shot placement has detectable real world effects.

OK, and? What's your point?

The point is that you mentioned live animal testing. I was just pointing out that I wasn't aware of any verifiable live animal testing since Thompson-Lagarde. If you know of some, I'd be interested to look into it.

So why then have you based your argument that the benefits of caliber in real world shooting must insignificant on a method of study that was supposedly abandoned as fruitless?

I'm going to assume you are serious and give you a straight answer.

Fruitless means "failing to achieve the desired results; unproductive or useless." The fact that it was abandoned as useless means that they couldn't get the results they were looking for from the method of study. The results they were looking for were effects on real-world shootings due to terminal performance difference resulting from caliber.

So, to answer your question, I made that argument because it directly supports my point. Which is kind of what the basis of arguments is all about.

Now, perhaps you interpret his comments differently than I do, but it sounds to me like he thinks that the specific organ that is hit is of far greater importance than the quantity of tissue it destroys, which was what I argued to begin with.

Sometimes I think you aren't really reading what I've written and are arguing with yourself.

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Now we have one bullet that destroys a thousandth of a 180lb person, and a second one that destroys a thousandth (0.001) plus 27 hundred thousandths (0.00027) of a 180lb person. The difference in wound volume amounts to 27 hundred thousandths of a 180lb person. Now we start to really understand why it's not the difference in performance that matters, it's what kind of tissue the bullet hits that matters.

Since you want to quote Urey Patrick, let's examine his comments in their full context:

I quoted him back on page three and I made the following comments:

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

He understands the problem and the answer is staring him in the face, but he was so entrenched in the idea that terminal performance MUST make a difference that he couldn't get to the right conclusion.

Think about what he's really saying. Why are large sample populations absolutely necessary? Why is even a hundred shootings statistically insignificant? Why might the difference only be 10 out of a thousand?

Is it because the terminal performance differences are large? Of course not! That would be an absolutely nonsensical. A difference that only shows up when you look at thousands of shootings has to be very small indeed. He just couldn't bring himself to believe how very small it actually was.

If you're arguing that he thought real world shooting analysis would eventually provide a result, that's correct, he did. As I noted, he just couldn't quite get to the right conclusion because he was so sure that caliber would have to make a significant difference.

He spent a good deal of time pointing out how hard it was to see the difference, but somehow it never clicked that if it was that hard to even detect the difference, it had to be so small that it wasn't going to be significant even if someone ever did manage to detect it. Sound familiar?

[JohnKSa]

But I doubt anyone on this thread really disagrees with that.

Do you still doubt?

[stagpanther]

Do you still doubt?

I never did doubt it. I said right from the start it was a ridiculous supposition and video IMO. Don't drag me into this war of semantic minutiae.

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by JohnKSa
Trying to put words in my mouth is disingenous. Conflating two things after they've been clearly differentiated, by your own words, no less, is disingenuous. Tactics like that are impolite, and more importantly, are not required when a person can support their position with logic and facts.

I have not tried to put any words in your mouth, I've only tried to restate your claims and arguments to ensure that I'm understanding the ideas that you're attempting to convey. You keep changing the semantics, definitions, and minutiae of your arguments in order to try to get out of the corner your arguments have painted you into and then you accuse me of being "disingenuous" when I try to pin you down to one definition or set of criteria. What is impolite and, more importantly not required to support a logical and fact-based argument, is to project one's own disingenuous tactics onto the person who disagrees with you.

If you can point out a specific case where you believe I've put words in your mouth, I will either clarify my comments to eliminate the misunderstanding, or apologize.

I have never claimed that you put words in my mouth.

Wound volume was brought up by someone else on this thread, but I have to say, your idea that it's a red herring is laughable. The FBI spent a lot of time and money coming up with wound volume numbers (Urey Patrick even mentions the topic) to try to assess caliber performance. I mean, you're entitled to your opinion, but the idea that wound volume shouldn't come up in caliber discussions is going to be pretty uncommon

Discussing the difference in wound volume between one caliber and another is one thing. The idea that comparing the volume of a bullet wound to the weight of an entire 180 lbs person will tell us anything meaningful or useful is laughable. I never said that wound volume shouldn't come up, only that your thought experiment, mental gymnastics, or whatever other term or definition you'd like to use about comparing the weight of the tissue destroyed by a gunshot wound to the weight of the body as a whole is pointless.

The definitions issue had to be raised, unfortunately, because the use of words either without understanding their meaning, or in an attempt to bend their meanings to match personal opinion was becoming a problem. You are correct that it shouldn't be necessary to argue about the standard definitions of words in an exchange between adults. It's regrettable that it became necessary here.

No, it shouldn't be necessary between adults, but as you want to continually nitpick and change definitions to suit your arguments, it became necessary to attempt to avoid the discussion becoming a circular argument about semantics and definitions (which you've turned it into anyway).

This is the last time I'm going to address this point.

When you initially asked about accuracy (as defined by Ellifritz), I was not paying attention closely enough and I responded with a comment about accuracy (normal definition). I've admitted what happened and that it was my mistake.

The notion that someone such as yourself who is so laser-focused on the minutiae of semantics and definitions, would miss the fact that I clearly, specifically, and deliberately defined accuracy when I posed the question is, curious to say the least. Perhaps I'm overly suspicious, but I find it more likely that you knew the answer to the question would contradict your argument. This would also explain why you were so reluctant to answer the question and so eager to quibble about definitions rather than address the issue directly.

I told you this plainly 2 days ago. You tried to re-engage the topic with a post that conflated accuracy as defined by Ellifritz with normal accuracy, tried to imply that I had changed my position on accuracy in spite of my clear explanation of what happened, and also tried to put words in my mouth.

Again John, I never tried to put words in your mouth. I simply asked you to reconcile two claims that you made which would appear to be at odds with each other. You stated that accuracy has detectable and significant effects of the outcome of real-world shootings, but in Ellifritz's study of real-world shootings, the effects of accuracy, regardless of which definition of accuracy you prefer to use, would seem to have no significant effect on incapacitation. So, if accuracy does indeed have detectable and significant effects as you claim, then something must be obscuring those effects in Ellifritz's study. However, you also claim that if the effects of a factor can be obscured in the real world, then those effects must not be significant. Therefore, logic would dictate that the notion that the effects of accuracy being detectable and significant but obscured in the study of real-world shootings and the notion that any factor which can have its effects obscured in the study of real-world shooting must be insignificant cannot both be true. I asked you to reconcile two seemingly opposing ideas and you continually refuse to do so.

I have made NO assessments of "accuracy as defined by Ellifritz" and have, in fact, made it plain that I am NOT going to even try to assess its effects on real world shootings and that I will accept your assessment of its effects.

So you refuse to address the issue, got it.

Any attempt to make it seem that I've provided an assessment of "accuracy as defined by Ellifritz" from this point forward is evidence of an underhanded attempt to put words in my mouth, or of severe reading comprehension issues.

Nobody is putting words in your mouth nor do I have reading comprehension issues, I'm just trying to discern what sort of accuracy you ARE providing an assessment of if not "as defined by Ellifritz" and upon what real-world data that assessment is based.

I'm going to assume you are serious and give you a straight answer. It doesn't take a study to determine that missing the target vs. making a brain shot has an obvious real-world effect on the outcome of a real-world shooting. I don't feel it's controversial to note that shot placement has detectable real world effects.

Nor does it take a study to determine that a shot to the head or torso, where the majority of vital organs are located, is more likely to incapacitate someone than a shot to an extremity or one that misses all together. Merriam Webster defines "accurate", as it relates to shooting, as "going to, reaching, or hitting the intended target : not missing the target." Since nobody outside of Hollywood that I'm aware of advocates intentionally aiming at the extremities or intentionally trying not to hit the person you're shooting at, then the head and torso would seem to be the "intended target." As such, I really don't see how, for the purposes of this discussion, Ellifritz's definition of "shots that hit the head or torso" for "accuracy" is particularly problematic or "non-standard." So, I don't know what you consider to be the "standard" definition of accuracy, but Ellifritz's definition and Merriam Webster's definition don't seem to be inconsistent with each other.

The point is that you mentioned live animal testing. I was just pointing out that I wasn't aware of any verifiable live animal testing since Thompson-Lagarde. If you know of some, I'd be interested to look into it.

Whether or not there has been live animal testing since Thompson-Lagarde is immaterial to what I said. Thompson-Lagarde was live animal testing and it was live animal testing that took place many decades ago (12 decades ago to be exact). None of that changes the point that the statement was meant to convey which is that no one besides Evan Marshall, Ed Sanow, and Greg Ellifritz has made a serious attempt to study the outcomes of real world shootings. If you are aware of someone else who has I'd love to hear about it.

Sometimes I think you aren't really reading what I've written and are arguing with yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnKSa
Now we have one bullet that destroys a thousandth of a 180lb person, and a second one that destroys a thousandth (0.001) plus 27 hundred thousandths (0.00027) of a 180lb person. The difference in wound volume amounts to 27 hundred thousandths of a 180lb person. Now we start to really understand why it's not the difference in performance that matters, it's what kind of tissue the bullet hits that matters.

Yes John, you said that in post #212. However, that was after I stated this in post #210:

Originally posted by Webleymkv
[I]OK, so say we run the calculation based on the average density of all tissues in the human body, of what use is the result? Different tissues in the body an tolerate being damaged to different degrees, so without knowing which specific tissues are being damaged by a hypothetical gunshot, the average volume of tissue damaged doesn't really tell us much. For example, I have cared for patients that were able to live relatively normal lives for decades after having a pneumonectomy or nephrectomy, so we know that you can lose up to 50% of your lung or kidney tissue, but if you lost half of your brain or cardiac tissue you wouldn't be able to survive. Like I said, calculating the average amount of tissue, whether by weight or volume, damaged by a gunshot is a waste of time because it doesn't help us predict the outcome of a shooting.

So tell me again, who's arguing with himself rather than reading what the other person wrote?

If you're arguing that he thought real world shooting analysis would eventually provide a result, that's correct, he did. As I noted, he just couldn't quite get to the right conclusion because he was so sure that caliber would have to make a significant difference.

He spent a good deal of time pointing out how hard it was to see the difference, but somehow it never clicked that if it was that hard to even detect the difference, it had to be so small that it wasn't going to be significant even if someone ever did manage to detect it. Sound familiar?

So you chose to use the statements of someone who you believe came to incorrect conclusions to support the notion that your own conclusions are correct?

While I disagree with Urey Patrick on many things, in this particular case I actually do agree with him that data from real-world shootings can be useful, but the methodology of the studies which have been done on the topic to date (both then and now) have failed to utilize the information to determine anything meaningful. The biggest problem that I see with study of real-world shootings, laboratory testing, and live animal testing is that the majority of proponents of each methodology seem to think their preferred methodology is the only useful one. Patrick Urey argued that data from real-world shootings should be used to validate the information gleaned from laboratory testing because, as he pointed out, both methodologies can reveal information that the other cannot. Unfortunately, nobody other than Ellifritz seems to be interested in studying real-world shootings since Marshall and Sanow and I think this is likely due to the bad press and vicious attacks on Marshall and Sanow's credibility and character that was leveled by some extremely vocal "Facklerites." Ironically, though still unfortunately, Ellifritz in an attempt to avoid the credibility issues, and thereby the attacks on his character, that plagued Marshall and Sanow chose to change his methodology to the point that rather than results lacking credibility, he got results from which no meaningful conclusions can be drawn.

[JohnKSa]

The idea that comparing the volume of a bullet wound to the weight of an entire 180 lbs person will tell us anything meaningful or useful is laughable.

You mean like Urey Patrick did in his paper?

...you want to continually...change definitions to suit your arguments...

I've used the same definitions all the way through this thread. If you think differently, give me examples and I will address them.

I simply asked you to reconcile two claims that you made which would appear to be at odds with each other.

I did not make two claims at odds with each other. I've explained it multiple times.

...in Ellifritz's study of real-world shootings, the effects of accuracy, regardless of which definition of accuracy you prefer to use, would seem to have no significant effect on incapacitation.

You know this is incorrect since Ellifritz only assessed "accuracy" by his specific and unique definition, and not by the normal definition. You clearly understood they were different at one time because you took care to specify which one you were talking about. It's kind of sadly amusing that now you are arguing they are the same while at the same time accusing me of changing definitions.

So, if accuracy does indeed have detectable and significant effects as you claim, then something must be obscuring those effects in Ellifritz's study.

As I said, any attempt to make it seem that I've provided an assessment of "accuracy as defined by Ellifritz" from this point forward is evidence of an underhanded attempt to put words in my mouth, or of severe reading comprehension issues. So, which is it?

So you refuse to address the issue, got it.

This is a really nasty habit you've got. When someone won't say what you want them to, you say it for them. It doesn't accomplish anything in terms of supporting your argument.

No, I haven't refused to address the issue and you know it. I've addressed the issue thoroughly and repeatedly.

You don't like my explanation. I get it. That doesn't give you the right to accuse me of lying and then to try to put words in my mouth or to try to mischaracterize my responses.

So, I don't know what you consider to be the "standard" definition of accuracy...

I gave you an example and a synonym for it in my last post. You quoted the portion of the post that contained them.

So tell me again, who's arguing with himself rather than reading what the other person wrote?

Well, considering the two quotes you posted have very different premises, I think it's safe to say, "Not me."

I'm not going to make a habit of this because I think you should be able to understand both your own posts and mine. But because you seem to be having issues, I will summarize both your quote and mine so that the difference is clear. Of course, if you disagree with my summary of your quote, you're welcome to correct it. That said, if you correct it to the point that it fully agrees with mine, you're going to have to explain why you disagreed with it in post #213 but now you don't.

The premise of your quote was that looking at average wound volume was useless. Your rationale was that there are many different tissue types with differing degrees of damage tolerance.

The premise of my quote was that looking at average wound volume, particularly as a percentage of a whole person provided valuable perspective because it highlighted the need to consider that the important thing was not how much tissue was destroyed, but what type.

See the difference now? You apparently did when I posted it because you responded with an objection. What has happened since then?

So you chose to use the statements of someone who you believe came to incorrect conclusions to support the notion that your own conclusions are correct?

You mean, like you're using Ellifritz's statements and study results to support your arguments even though you disagree with his conclusions? Yeah, I guess I did.

Urey Patrick had a lot of knowledge and insight and is considered an expert, he just couldn't get to the right conclusion because he was unable to see past his preconceptions. That one flaw doesn't invalidate all of his knowledge, experience and insight. Einstein objected to some aspects of quantum theory that are now accepted as accurate, but no one with half a brain would try to dismiss everything he contributed to science because of that fact.

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by JohnKSa
You mean like Urey Patrick did in his paper?

You mean the same paper where Urey Patrick said that the specific organs hit was more important than the quantity of tissue destroyed?

I've used the same definitions all the way through this thread. If you think differently, give me examples and I will address them.

Ok, how long did we spend arguing about the definition of "detectable"? Once I pointed out that the effects of several factors other than caliber could not be easily seen, discerned, or known from the Ellifritz study, you switched gears and claimed that, just because they're unknown, they're not necessarily "undetectable". Well John you and I both know that neither you nor I have the ability to detect these things and if Ellifritz was able to, he apparently didn't so these factors are "undetectable" to you and I because we simply don't have the means to detect them. Once the term "undetectable," which most would define simply as "that which is cannot be detected," no longer fit your claims you modified it to "that which cannot be detected by anyone ever" by arguing that factors which are clearly undetectable by you and I based on the resources we have might be detectable by someone else. The whole detour over the definition of "accuracy" is another as, when confronted with data showing that you had contradicted your earlier claims by stating that accuracy has detectable an significant effects on the outcome of real world shootings, you started quibbling about Ellifritz's definition of accuracy vs. some "standard" definition of the word which you have yet to even bother to clearly define. As I pointed out in my previous post, Ellifritz's definition is not inconsistent with Merriam Webster's and if Merriam Webster's isn't "standard" then I'm not sure what you think is.

I did not make two claims at odds with each other. I've explained it multiple times.

Yes John, you did and I've explained this at great length. You are not applying the same criteria fairly to caliber and accuracy and, when confronted with this, you've resorted to quibbling about definitions, multiple logical fallacies, and personally attacking me by accusing me of being disingenuous and underhanded.

You know this is incorrect since Ellifritz only assessed "accuracy" by his specific and unique definition, and not by the normal definition. You clearly understood they were different at one time because you took care to specify which one you were talking about. It's kind of sadly amusing that now you are arguing they are the same while at the same time accusing me of changing definitions.

John, I explained thoroughly in my previous post how Ellifritz's definition and Webster's are not inconsistent with each other. Meanwhile you keep rambling about the "standard" or "normal" definition of accuracy which, if you ever bother to define them at all, I must have missed somewhere in these walls of text.

As I said, any attempt to make it seem that I've provided an assessment of "accuracy as defined by Ellifritz" from this point forward is evidence of an underhanded attempt to put words in my mouth, or of severe reading comprehension issues. So, which is it?

John, either you're desperately trying to set up a strawman here or you are the one with reading comprehension issues. What you quoted is my own assessment of "accuracy as defined by Ellifritz" and how it relates to your claims. Am I not allowed to present counter-arguments to your own without being accused of "putting words in your mouth"?

This is a really nasty habit you've got. When someone won't say what you want them to, you say it for them. It doesn't accomplish anything in terms of supporting your argument.

When you say, "I am NOT going to even try to assess its effects on real world shootings" how else could that be interpreted? If I ask you to do something, and you state that you will NOT even try to do that thing, then you have REFUSED to do what has been asked of you. Also, when referring to "accuracy as defined by Ellifritz," you say "I will accept your assessment of its effects". Well my assessment is that Ellifritz definition is not inconsistent with the "standard" or "normal" definition from Merriam Webster and, furthermore, the effects of accuracy are not detectable in the results of Ellifritz's study. Do you accept this assessment or not?

No, I haven't refused to address the issue and you know it. I've addressed the issue thoroughly and repeatedly.

Yes John, you have and you and I both know it. You painted yourself into a corner and have attempted to play shenanigans with definitions, lay red-herrings, and attack my integrity to get out of it.

I gave you an example and a synonym for it in my last post. You quoted the portion of the post that contained them.

Is this the example you're talking about?

It doesn't take a study to determine that missing the target vs. making a brain shot has an obvious real-world effect on the outcome of a real-world shooting. I don't feel it's controversial to note that shot placement has detectable real world effects.

Well, in order to avoid further confusion, let's make sure that we know EXACTLY what you're talking about. Is only a shot which hits the brain an "accurate" shot or is any shot which does not miss the person you're shooting at entirely considered "accurate"? Since the majority of the vital structures are contained within the head and torso, striking the head or torso, as in Ellifritz's definition of accuracy, would seem to be consistent with Webster's definition of "hitting the intended target". Also, nobody outside of Hollywood advocates trying to stop a violent attack by intentionally trying to shoot someone in the arms, legs, hands, or feet so a shot which impacts an extremity seem not to be consistent with Webster's definition of "not missing the target" and thus rightfully excluded from Ellifritz's definition of accuracy.

The premise of your quote was that looking at average wound volume was useless. Your rationale was that there are many different tissue types with differing degrees of damage tolerance.

Average wound volume in and of itself doesn't tell us anything. I explained this very thoroughly in my previous posts, but I'll summarize it here: The human body can tolerate the loss of 50% or more of some tissues but extremely small amounts of others. Average wound volume does not account for the differences in damage tolerance of various tissues and thus, cannot reliably predict how a person will react to being shot.

The premise of my quote was that looking at average wound volume, particularly as a percentage of a whole person provided valuable perspective because it highlighted the need to consider that the important thing was not how much tissue was destroyed, but what type.

What "valuable" perspective, exactly, does average wound volume (and you originally specified weight rather than volume) give us? Merriam Webster defines "average" as "a single value (such as a mean, mode, or median) that summarizes or represents the general significance of a set of unequal values". Since the effect of a gunshot wound, and the volume thereof, to the unequal damage tolerance of various tissues can be so drastically different, then what is the use of trying to distill them down into an "average" when we have no idea if the gunfight we're trying to predict the outcome of will be "average" or not?

Let's look at the part of the quote of yourself that you chose to put in bold in post #278

Now we start to really understand why it's not the difference in performance that matters, it's what kind of tissue the bullet hits that matters.

Now let's look at the part of my own quote that I put in bold in post #281

Originally posted by Webleymkv
so without knowing which specific tissues are being damaged by a hypothetical gunshot, the average volume of tissue damaged doesn't really tell us much...Like I said, calculating the average amount of tissue, whether by weight or volume, damaged by a gunshot is a waste of time because it doesn't help us predict the outcome of a shooting.

Now, is the main point, which had attention drawn to in by being put in bold, in both of those quotes not that the specific tissue damaged is what's important? You say that the wound volume calculation gives us "valuable perspective" on this, but I argue its a waste of time because the "valuable perspective" you claim that we get from these mental gymnastics is something we already knew to begin with. We already knew that a shot through the buttocks won't have the same effect as a shot through the heart, so what "valuable perspective" do we get by calculating something based on the "average" of both of those and many other tissues?

You mean, like you're using Ellifritz's statements and study results to support your arguments even though you disagree with his conclusions? Yeah, I guess I did.

Urey Patrick had a lot of knowledge and insight and is considered an expert, he just couldn't get to the right conclusion because he was unable to see past his preconceptions. That one flaw doesn't invalidate all of his knowledge, experience and insight. Einstein objected to some aspects of quantum theory that are now accepted as accurate, but no one with half a brain would try to dismiss everything he contributed to science because of that fact.

Greg Ellifritz's study was brought up by another posted earlier in the thread before I ever waded in. Also, Ellifritz and Marshall/Sanow are the only two studies of real world shootings I'm aware of and nobody has been able to name any others despite my several invitations to do so. As we both agree, or at least neither of us has disagreed, that Marshall/Sanow cannot be relied upon due to its credibility issues, that leaves us with Ellifritz as the only credible real-world shooting data to discuss regardless of how flawed or inconclusive it may be.

Also, you have attempted to use Urey Patrick's statements as an appeal to authority to support your own claim while simultaneously claiming that, if he'd only been able to see past his preconceptions, that he'd have reached the same conclusions you have. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps Urey Patrick isn't the one, or at least not the only one, having trouble seeing past his preconceptions?

I, on the other hand, have repeatedly pointed out the flaws in Ellifritz's study and explained why those flaws make his results inconclusive. Any conclusions of Ellifritz which I disagree with, and he doesn't have many conclusions to begin with, are because of the flaws I see in his data and methodology. Do you see the difference here? You're trying to use Urey Patrick's statements as an appeal to authority to support your own claims despite the fact that you disagree with his conclusions while I am pointing out the flaws in Ellifritz's study to explain why I disagree with his conclusions.

Also, I never said that Urey Patrick's knowledge, experience, or insight were invalid. As a matter of fact, I said this in my previous post:

Originally posted by Webleymkv
While I disagree with Urey Patrick on many things, in this particular case I actually do agree with him that data from real-world shootings can be useful, but the methodology of the studies which have been done on the topic to date (both then and now) have failed to utilize the information to determine anything meaningful.

Now, having said all of that, if you want to seriously discuss whether or not caliber has a significant effect on the outcome of real world shootings, I'm happy to do so. But, if you choose to continue to avoid addressing my counter-arguments through misdirection and personal attacks, then I think I'm about done here because, at this point, we're generating a lot more heat than light.

[JohnKSa]

You mean the same paper where Urey Patrick said that the specific organs hit was more important than the quantity of tissue destroyed?

Yes. And I agree with him on that point. As I've stated more than once in this thread.

Ok, how long did we spend arguing about the definition of "detectable"?

A long time. But, and this is important--I never tried to change the definition. In fact, on several occasions I quoted the common definition for absolute clarity.

You claimed I have been continually changing definitions. That is not true.

...just because they're unknown, they're not necessarily "undetectable"

1. That is because 'unknown' and ;undetectable' mean two different things. You can verify this quite easily.
2. You tried to equate 'unknown' and 'undetectable' and I pointed out the difference. But, and this is important, I never tried to change the definition of either word.

Look, I'm getting tired of trying to address your Gish Gallops, so here's a different approach.

All your maunderings about what I have said about accuracy are, at best, nonsense, and at worse underhanded attempts to put words in my mouth.

You are misrepresenting my position. You keep claiming/implying that I made some assessment of accuracy as it relates to Ellifritz's study results. I have not. Period. I have made general comments relating to the effect of accuracy (shot placement), on real-world shootings and I stand by those. But none of those statements has been in relation to the Ellifritz data, and the statements were not using his definition of accuracy.

Now, is the main point, which had attention drawn to in by being put in bold, in both of those quotes not that the specific tissue damaged is what's important? You say that the wound volume calculation gives us "valuable perspective" on this, but I argue its a waste of time because the "valuable perspective" you claim that we get from these mental gymnastics is something we already knew to begin with. We already knew that a shot through the buttocks won't have the same effect as a shot through the heart, so what "valuable perspective" do we get by calculating something based on the "average" of both of those and many other tissues?

It provides valuable perspective in the sense that 0.1% of a human is a very small proportion. Trying to physically stop a human by destroying a thousandth at a time is not going to be productive. It makes it plain that we need to focus on WHAT kind of tissue is being destroyed, not just on how much tissue is being destroyed.

I've answered that multiple times now. If you don't understand, I don't think I can help you further in that regard.

Greg Ellifritz's study was brought up by another posted earlier in the thread before I ever waded in.

Irrelevant. You have used his data to support your position in spite of disagreeing with his conclusions. This, and the Einstein example I provided explain how it's possible to take advantage of a person's expertise without agreeing with them fully.

You objected to my using Urey Patrick as a source when I disagreed with his overall conclusion and that's what I was responding to.

I, on the other hand, have repeatedly pointed out the flaws in Ellifritz's study...

As I pointed out the flaw in Patrick's conclusion when I first quoted him.

But, if you choose to continue to avoid addressing my counter-arguments through misdirection and personal attacks, then I think I'm about done here because, at this point, we're generating a lot more heat than light.

First of all, I'm not avoiding anything, but if you do a Gish Gallop then you can't reasonably expect someone to address every single one of your "throw it against the wall again and see if it sticks this time" arguments. Especially if they are repetitive or have already been previously addressed.

As far as personal attacks, I've made none--you, on the other hand have pretty much straight up accused me of lying.

Look, if you really want to keep discussing this, then you pick one of your "counter-arguments" and I will address it. Once we're done with that one, we can move on to the next one.

I'm not going to play into your Gish Gallop any longer. You're welcome to continue with that approach, but I'm only going to address one point in each of your posts from this point forward. If you want me to address all of your points, here's how that's going to work. You put them forth one at a time and we'll work through them one at a time.

That's going to focus on quality, not quantity. It's going to short circuit the attempts to keep revisiting topics that have already been addressed satisfactorily. It's going to maintain clarity. It's going to make it very difficult to play obfuscatory games or slip in logical fallacies. You're going to love it.

[stagpanther]

To sum up--delivering a headshot is more effective than shooting yourself in the foot or hitting the broad side of a barn?

[JohnKSa]

Well, that's really not the question. Relating it to the thread topic, it's safe to say that in all of those cases (headshot, shooting your own foot, and hitting the side of a barn) caliber won't be the deciding factor in whether the attacker stops attacking.

[stagpanther]

caliber won't be the deciding factor in whether the attacker stops attacking.

1000% agree. Please, no more gollop!

[Webleymkv]

John I'm disappointed to say that you're continuing just as I thought you would. I'm through here.

[JohnKSa]

Can't say I'm terribly surprised. I kind of figured you would balk at having to just focus on just one point at a time even if that approach did address your stated concern that I wasn't answering all your arguments.

[Jim567]

If I have taken away anything from this -

I understand,I don't want to get shot!!