You realize the last 4 can pretty much co-exist and the only one that's really at odds are the ones that believe the gospel of Fackler that believe 2000 fps is a magic point that must be reached before any other wound mechanism other than permanent crush cavity exists.
It's not that rigid. You don't go from direct mechanical wounding @ 1,950 FPS to massive permanent crush cavity @ 2,050 FPS. But to deny that a bullet traveling at 2,900 FPS wounds very differently from one doing 1,000 FPS is foolish.
I'm a combination of Dave's #2 & #4 groups, having spent as similar amounts of time shooting at living creatures and researching wound ballistics. I also have a little bit of personal experience with human beings taking low velocity rounds. I don't follow the Michael Courtney school of thought at all, no matter how many corpses or goats his group shoots with pistols and then examines under a microscope for remote petechiae.
One of the better examples to draw on is small animals like prairie dogs, how they behave when shot. If you use .22 LR, hit one at, say, 75 yards, bullet velocity is somewhere around 1,000 FPS. Shot placement is important, and barring head shots, the little buggers will frequently get down their holes before dying of their wound. I have used a 9mm carbine as well, and the results are more favorable than .22 rimfire, but still not very dramatic. Fewer of them escape, but there's not really any carnage, just a hole in one side and out the other. Using some hot loaded 90 gr. JHPs in the carbine did much more damage, not many of them moving after being hit and often a fair amount of blood around them. Now enter the .22 Hornet, you start to see some real damage, big chunks of the rat blown out and generally instantaneous death. But those all pail in comparison to the .220 swift, which will completely turn the animal inside-out.
How does that translate to larger creatures like human beings? Well, we certainly won't explode like they do when hit with a high velocity rifle round, but the wounding mechanism that opens them up is the same in a larger body.
*Low velocity non-expanding bullets will make a neat little hole through most tissue, though sometimes tearing beyond the bullet's path in liver or lungs. The less frontal area, the smaller the hole. As non-expanding bullets go, wadcutter type profiles create bigger wounds than round nose.
*Low velocity expanding bullets create a larger wound, and the sharp edges of bent back "petals" will cut & tear tissue that is simply pushed aside by the non-expanding round nose bullet. Sometimes there are also secondary projectiles as pieces break off, which may or may not make the wound worse from an incapacitation standpoint, as shed bullet mass usually means less penetration.
*High velocity non-expanding bullets will create wound tracks much larger than the bullet itself until the velocity drops. The bullets also tend to yaw & tumble, still creating a wound larger than bullet diameter even when velocity has fallen too low for the hydraulic shock crush cavity wounding mechanism.
*High velocity expanding bullets do the most damage, which is why we use them to kill animals far larger than ourselves. If you've ever successfully hunted big game, you've seen first hand the kind of damage an expanding rifle bullet can do inside a body. Even in very elastic muscle tissue, you see massive tears. Internal organs are often obliterated. Bones shattered, fragments sent through other tissue. Nasty, nasty wounds.
Not relevant for this topic are medium velocity rifle rounds and non-expanding bullets used for dangerous game, which have woundding mechanisms in between handgun and high velocity rifle, while their penetration is far, far more than either, tailored to their specific use in bringing down large, dense, thick-skinned, stubborn animals.