Study was very subjective Brooke.
He gets data -- he gives various stats calculated from the data. That is exactly the opposite of objective.
First off the data pool is small.
Yes, but it's the data. Smallness of the data set doesn't mean that it is unscientific or objective. It's always better to have larger data sets.
Second its a statistical fact that at least 5 out of 6 people shot with handguns will survive, and a BG still breathing is a BG who is dangerous.
That is not what I'm pointing out as the useful bit. The useful bit to me isn't probability of killing a person in 1 shot, or percentage of people still alive at the end of the attack, etc. -- the useful bit is, on average, how many shots does it take until the attack stops. The most-probable number of shots is 1, regardless of ammo. That doesn't seem surprising. That is why a .22 is OK (not the best, but OK) for typical self defense -- according to this data set.
Now since the type of projectile is as important as the caliber itself the lack of inclusion of said data, ITSELF, invalidates the study.
That doesn't invalidate the study or the part of it that I think is interesting.
My guess is he uses a lot of military data
I don't think so, given where he says he got the data, but who knows?
His use of head shots is also an aberration . . .
and they themselves walk to the hospital . . . [etc.]
I don't care about any of that. The main thing is: how many shots does it take to stop an attack. In the military and in police work, you probably care a great deal about the state of the guy at the end -- but that is not a normal citizen's main concern. If .22's took 15 shots on average for an attack to stop (or even 5), that would mean a .22 is not very useful. It takes less than 2 on average, about the same as other calibers. What this means is that one shot from a gun (no matter what type of gun it is or what ammo it has) typically will cause an attacker to say "Screw this" and move off -- again, according to this data set.
He leaves the reader feeling a .22 is just as good as a .38 and that just isnt so.
According to the data, it is, as long as you define "just as good" as "takes about the same number of shots on average until the attack stops". If you define "just as good" as "kills the same number of people in one shot" or "has the same percentage of people dead at end of attack" or something else, then no, that's not correct -- but that's not what he means.
When I first started this business over 30 years ago
Your realm of operation is vastly different than the average civilian's. You should have a much bigger gun than a .22. I wish you had a shotgun -- all the time!
But all in all theres no way I'd ever tell anyone to carry a .22 to protect themselves.
You probably would if they would carry a small .22 but would not carry anything bigger. That's what I'm getting at. It's not that a small .22 is better than a .38 if a person would carry either one equally frequently -- the .38 is of course better in that case.
I once had a .22 Beretta and had it in my pocket when two guys tried to rob me one morning. Without going into detail the piece did not bring me comfort and I sold it the next day and never again carried a mouse gun.
I'm interested in the particulars if you could relate them.
Also, would you rather have had the .22 Beretta or no gun at all, if those were your only two options?
