NRA Torsens

[Geoff Jenkins <jenkinsg@pilot.msu.edu>]

QSHIPQ:
>Ok, lets use your analogy. When you pick up that gun, you have intent.  You
>have target, ammunition, understanding of the device, a trigger, caliber of
>bullet, a safety, and a bunch of other variables that affect what will HAPPEN
>when you pull the trigger.  At what?  At what cf?  Not totally with you here.

Wheel guns don't (generally) have safeties

You see, there you go. You don't understand the design of a revolver, but the 
revolver's effect on you would be just the same if you did. That's the point. 
Statistical testing of a potential outcome doesn't rely upon the sample's 
understanding of the issue. Indeed, the more "random" the sample's knowledge, 
the better. If only those who believe in bite can experience it, that would be 
rather suggestive that it's driver-induced rather than driver-independent.

>Might I direct you to Jeff's description of the "bite" phenomenon, and YOU
>help us with the test.  This is rehash too.  The variables to the bite are in
>the archives, a lot are there.  Why?  Cuz the weapon is dumb.  And the shooter
>makes it no better at it's mission.  Because the weapon doesn't necessarily
>make a bullseye, even when fired the same way a dozen times.  Darn those
>turns.

Yep, sorry, Jeff's (highly articulate, as ever) piece arrived (via the digest) 
2 minutes after I sent mine off. Do I take it that you subscribe to his views 
as to (i) how to generate bite (ii) why Dave etc. haven't seen it?

>This is an experience issue.

Exactly. The question, to my mind, is how common/serious/likely an experience 
it is, which is a question nobody can answer based upon the current sample size 
(not to mention the antagonistic nature of some of the posts).

Geoff

--
Geoff Jenkins                     Economics, 101 Marshall Hall, E. Lansing, MI 
48824
Ph: (517) 355-4759           email: jenkinsg@pilot.msu.edu
Fax: (517) 432-1068         URL: http://www.msu.edu/user/jenkinsg