You're getting hung up on a single variable while ignoring all the others. As I said before, there is a very good reason that law enforcement uses the rounds they do.
No, I don't think so. Let's be clear here. What I disagree with is the claim that hollow point bullets are safer than FMJs, as an absolute. And I disagree with this not because of "one variable," but because of several.
We seem to agree that from the point a bullet leaves the muzzle until it strikes something
, a hollow point is more dangerous than a FMJ bullet. That's, after all, why police want to use hollow points, as you've noted and I agree with
Now, I also agree that once
a hollow point strikes something, it is
less dangerous than the FMJ.
So a hollow point is
safer in the sense it reduced ricochet and penetration damage--i.e., after it hits something. It is not
safer in the sense of directly striking a bystander directly--i.e., before it hits something. This is why I won't accept the argument that a hollow point is safer as an absolute. It is safer in some contexts, and not others.
Another context is who's firing the bullet.
You say the study assumes bullet will be fired only against an attacker, a legitimate threat. But this is not how things really work in the world.
Bullets are fired in circumstances other than against an attacker, a legitimate threat. Idiots fire guns. Criminals fire guns. Well-intentioned people with bad aim fire guns. Police fire guns. Well-trained responsible gun owners fire guns. Kids messing around fire guns. Angry spouses and ex-lovers fire guns. Terrorists fire guns. Doped up morons fire guns.
In some of these cases, the fact the shooter is using hollow points does not increase the risk to bystanders. But in others, it must assuredly does. Thus, again, I cannot accept the argument that a hollow point is safer as an absolute.