As most of you probably already know, I'm definately a Facklerite.
1. I think the odds that you will be in a serious car accident are much less than 10%, but most of us consider saftey to be high on the priority list when deciding what car to buy. I think the extra margin of saftey provided by the IWBA/FBI recommendations for bullet penetration depth are similar: you don't usually need them but they give you an important edge when you need it the most. Consider also that you may not get that second shot at a better angle.
2. If the controversy were just between proponents of fast/light and slow/heavy and both sides agreed on what tests and/or analysis would give the decisive answers, this issue would have been resolved a long time ago. The primary problem Facklerites have with M&S is that their "data" just doesn't add up, so their conclusions are meaningless.
To clarify what I am saying: they *might* be right about fast/light, but I don't know why I should believe them based on the bad evidence they give to support their point of view. You may not agree with the following quote, but I don't know why I should be convinced by your opinion on the matter if you cannot give me valid reasons for distrusting it:
"We pointed out in IWBA Bulletin No. 1/92, that three academic statisticians had judged, independently, the Marshall/Sanow one-shot stop data to be bogus, i.e., made up to fit a preconceived theory. Since that time, another renown academic, Dr. Carroll Peters, Professor of Engineering at the University of Tennessee calculated the probability that they could be true to be one in ten to the twentieth power (1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000). Dr. Peters' paper describing his analysis will soon appear in print."
Unless you're into conspiracy theories, its hard to see why all these statisticians and engineers would lie about something like this. BTW: the above quote came from the section, "Too Good To Be True" [Link to invalid post].
3. The "it works in theory but doesn't cut it in the real world" argument is bogus. There is plenty of "real world" support for Fackler's/IBWA's findings:
"Marshall, Sanow, Massad Ayoob and other "one-shot stop" advocates either ignorantly or intentionally mischaracterize and attempt to discredit the professional wound ballistics community as lab coat wearing nerds who never step foot outside the confines of a controlled laboratory setting. These uninformed or dishonest gunwriters attempt to portray wound ballistics professionals as incompetent dunces who are unwilling to consider "real world shooting results," lest the "real world laboratory of the street" contradict cherished "laboratory gelatin results" and "laboratory theories." One need only peruse a few issues of the IWBA journal, Wound Ballistics Review, to learn otherwise. Many of the articles are written by law enforcement officers or other professionals who work closely with law enforcement agencies."
This quote is from
here.
4. The debate is very lopsided in how each side conducts itself. Fackler/MacPherson use very harsh language at times when they write about Marshall, Sanow and Ayoob, but they back it up with data, good analysis and good arguments. Ayoob's article in American Handgunner was an example of the type of arguments we normally expect from the PC/Anti-gun crowd: he uses bad arguments, emotional tactics and twists the meaning of what his opponents say in order to easily defeat their supposed point of view. Here is a link to my letter sent to the magazine in
response to his article.
5. Its not just Fackler/IWBA and "ivory tower academics" that find the M&S results to be unbelievable:
"Maarten van Maanen's article, Discrepancies in the Marshall & Sanow "Data Base": An Evaluation Over Time, was the subject of Calibre Press' Street Survival Newsline (No. 419, dated 11/16/99), a law enforcement newsletter that's distributed to thousands of law enforcement officers worldwide. Calibre Press is a major law enforcement training organization. They produce and present the highly acclaimed Street Survival Seminar as well as publish the award winning books Street Survival, The Tactical Edge and Tactics for Criminal Patrol. The staff of Calibre Press reviewed van Maanen's article and found van Maanen's evidence of fraud and deceit so convincing as to warrant alerting the law enforcement community to his findings. If there's any one organization that has its finger on the pulse of what's going on in the "real world laboratory of the streets," it's the folks at Calibre Press.
(In 1993, Calibre Press permanently removed Marshall & Sanow's first book, Handgun Stopping Power, from their catalog after law enforcement members with the International Wound Ballistics Association presented them with compelling evidence that the book was teeming with falsehoods. Since then, Calibre Press has refused to carry Marshall & Sanow's books.)"
I got that quote from
here. Also, Fackler's in-depth review of the book Street Stoppers can be found
here. If anyone at Calibre Press had any reservations before about believing Fackler's claims about the bogusness (is that a word?
) of M&S's previous book, this review should settle the issue.
I just want to state one more time: I don't have a problem with folks who have other reasons they consider valid for their choice of fast/light over slow/heavy. I think I have shown that I have every reason in the world to doubt that M&S have provided any support for that proposition.
------------------
If you value your right to keep and bear arms, support
Citizens Of America -- they're doing it right!
Wound Ballistics is the study of effects on the body produced by penetrating projectiles.
Great
Daily Commentary from a thoughtful Christian perspective.
Some fascinating
insights into the current market mania from the Prudent Bear fund.
[This message has been edited by adad (edited June 03, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by adad (edited June 03, 2000).]
