View Single Post
Old 12-24-2012, 10:59   #698
pisc1024's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 643
Originally Posted by English View Post
This is a classic error. "If lots of people use it, it must be OK." It woud be true if there was a fairly simple objective measure. As it is, it s very hard to get sound comparitive evidence for the effectiveness of different handgun rounds. In that cirumstance people tend to fall back on whatever will convince them, such as superior authority, or irelevant criteria, such as, "The government changed to .45ACP when the .38 did not stop the Moros and it has been working well ever since."
Wow, well, where to begin? Of course saying "lots of people use it" is a dumb idea, no argument there. However dose "lots of people use it, and it has been PROVEN successful in real world shootings where lives were on the line" work better for you? I say that because that is what is really happening. I think that you personally don't like the FBI testing because it doesn’t take into account BPW, which I think has been proven to be a non player in handguns. So you suffer from the "testing doesn’t jive with my world view so I'm not going to take it into account, and I'm also going to rip on it every chance I get" side of things. See how that works?
The FBI did have a fairly epic fail that made them want an objective measure. Unfortunately they did not understand what objective science implied in this case and they used authority again instead. They were probably the only agency in the country with the clout to get funding for a proper objective test but they didn't do it. At the least, that would have involved shooting lots of human sized animals under controlled conditions with at least some of them behind windscreens or car bodywork and correlating those findings with the same shots made on ballistic gelatine.
I think we have been over this before, but humans and what they do, how they react after being shot are not animals. Animal testing may have its place, but to take a live pig, sit him behind the wheel of a car and shoot at him is just dumb.
Also, larger agencies these days can and do perform their own ballistic testing. They determine what they are most concerned with, and that is what they test for. Most of them are some sort of abbreviated version of the FBI
Instead of doing an objective study of what incapacitated animals quickly they jumped to insufficiently founded conclusions and reached a decision on a fallacious basis. The fact that they jumped from a hot part of the fire into a less hot part of the fire was a random product. More important is that the egos involved with the decision have made it hard to re-examine the study itself and do something better.

I think that after you have a tragedy like the Miami shootout most people put their ego's in check for a little while. I have seen it happen several times in my life. To say that ego had any reflection on this testing protocol is just despicable personal supposition on your part. You say that they came to a fallacious conclusion? Well then why have they not had some sort of terminal ballistics related disaster ala Miami in the 20+ years since? The FBI and hundreds if not thousands of LEAs seem to be doing just fine with the protocols being proven every day out on the streets of America.

Last edited by pisc1024; 12-24-2012 at 11:00..
pisc1024 is offline   Reply With Quote