[davidsog]

Reading between the lines, the article seems to be saying that the 12 civilian mass shootings they evaluated happened in circumstances where A-zone hits were extremely likely, and given good A-zone hits, immediate first class medical care won’t help much.

The author seems to be saying that more guns is the answer. Of course the faster the shooter is stopped, the less damage he can do.

However, to conclude medical care is not required or is "good as it stands" I do not think is the correct direction.

For example in a typical mass shooting we see that 44.6 out of 100 casualties are going to have a fatal wound.

The case fatality rate for civilian mass shootings was 44.6%

Out of the 44.6 people, 7 of them had wounds that would have been survivable had they had there been level 1 trauma care available.

That is not including 14 people whom there is not enough data to evaluate because no autopsy was performed which is statistically significant considering our small sample size.

That still leaves 55.4 injured people who need to be treated and on the front side, 100 people that need to be triaged.

Given some good data such as the lack of extremity wounds, we can conclude that using that cool tourniquet is not as likely as it is on the battlefield.

However given the fact most injuries are to the thoracic region we can conclude that controlled med kits, sucking chest wound first aid, kirlex, thoracic bandages, etc..

Are going to be important as well as the training to use them.

The most common survivable injury was a wound to the chest (89% of all survivable injuries) without obvious evidence of vascular or cardiac injury

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...ve-been-saved/