|
study?
Well now.
I remember a "study" quoted to us in my first ccw class. It showed the percentage of "stopped" incedents with one or two rounds by caliber. It was more involved than this, but I remember 9mm "stopped" the attack 62% of the time with two or fewer shots, while .45acp "stopped" the attack about 98% of the time. More calibers were listed, and my numbers might be a little off (poor memory), but that was the gist of it.
This was followed by the viewing of a fox news clip where a man in Israel used what appeared to be a .38 snub to defend himself from an attacker. The man fired all 5 shots with no response from the attacker. He did not even know he had been shot, and the attack continued.
Now this is a most excellent argument for the use and carry of .45acp. Indeed, the instructor was heavily advocating the .45acp as the "only" use-worthy caliber. But... This is as much emotional staging as is used by the "Brady bunch" in their anti-gun bs
What I take from this is that a "study" can be formed to bring in whatever results and support whatever position the person conducting the "study" wants to support. In like turn, how many of us are so bold as to quote "studies" that don't support our position during one of these arguments? How many times in your life have eggs been bad for you, and then good again? Careful not to date yourself.
The two things that we can all get out of this, as with the original articals? One is a bit of reassuring entertainment. And two, the knowledge that God even loves a fool that would thwart a lion with a .32.
Lol
|