|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 19, 2018, 12:43 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,289
|
Doctors and bullets---The Dumb Continues
Seems like the medical profession is gathering itself up for a push at stronger gun control. They’re pushing the idea that “gun violence” is a “public health concern” and our law makers should pay attention to what they [the medical profession] has to say about “gun control”.
Toward that end there’s been some, what I would call “misinformation” about guns and ammunition and what some might call “exaggerations” about the effect bullets fired from an “assault weapon” have on human bodies. Here’s an example from the New York Times by Dr. Leana Wen, an emergency physician and the health commissioner of Baltimore City. “Early in my medical training, I learned that it is not the bullet that kills you, but the path the bullet takes.” I thought long and hard about commenting on this statement and then decided to just let it sit there and be a reflection on the person who made it. Later on in the opinion piece the doctor is talking about bullets fired from an “assault weapon”. I’ve put some of the doctor’s comments in bold. “This is in contrast to expanding bullets, especially if shot from an assault rifle, which can discharge bullets much faster than a handgun. Once they enter the body, they fragment and explode, pulverizing bones, tearing blood vessels and liquefying organs.” Well the bullets DON’T explode. As to saying the bullet will liquefy an organ, IMhO this is over the top hyperbole to dramatize the point they are trying to make, which is that “assault weapons” are a “special kind of evil”. Talking about one specific gunshot wound case the doctor stated: “The bullet had disintegrated his spleen and torn his aorta. Four ribs had essentially turned to dust.” Once again I, admittedly NOT a medical professional, call into question whether an expanding .223 bullet would turn four ribs of a human being to dust. Again, I suspect the doctor is doing this to demonize “assault weapons”. I found it interesting that a correction was made by the New York Times after the opinion piece had been printed because, in their own words, they had “imprecisely described ammunition used in handguns and assault rifles”. The correction stated that “rifles do not shoot only expanding or handguns only non-expanding bullets”. Well pardon me but if they can’t get that very important part of their story right they are NOT doing their job and deserve to have their credibility questioned. If you want to read the whole NY Times article you can find it here: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/15/o...unds.html?_r=1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Another piece was an article in ‘The Trace’ about nasty things a bullet from an “assault weapon” can do. This article referenced the above opinion piece from the NY Times but provided the reader with additional information about ammunition. “Assault rifles don’t shoot the largest bullets on the market. In fact, the .223 projectile, a common round for the AR-15, is not much larger than many .22 rounds like the Hornet, typically used for youth shooting sports, target shooting, and hunting varmints. The .223 weighs in at 55 grains, while the .22 is usually 45 grains or smaller.” It took me a minute or two but from the above text I suspect ‘The Trace’ doesn’t know the difference between a .22 Hornet and a .22 long rifle round. While the .22 Hornet certain can be used and is used for those purposes the word ‘typically’, once again IMhO, would indicate that they mean the .22 long rifle round since I suspect several times more .22LR rounds than .22 Hornet rounds are sold per year. And once again if they can’t be troubled to get stuff like this right I don’t think their opinion on gun control should be given much weight. If you want to read the whole article from “The Trace” you can find it here: And you might just find a couple other examples that could lead one to believe ‘The Trace’ doesn’t really know what they’re talking about. https://www.thetrace.org/2017/06/phy...ssault-rifles/ |
March 19, 2018, 08:38 AM | #2 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 4,341
|
Quote:
Doctors, especially those that work in trauma, see first hand what many of us never see.....the destruction caused by firearms on the human body and it's components. Go to a hunting forum and you hear folks talking about "turning the lungs into mush" all the time. I myself butcher my own deer and am constantly amazed at the damage a bullet can make when it hits bone or an organ. It is not a pretty sight. I can understand why doctors are horrified by bullet construction and the damage they cause.....but still, it's that damage that bullets are designed for, especially hunting and SD/HD type bullets. There was a reason countries decided, as ugly as war is, to only use FMJ, non-expanding type bullets for warfare. I think for the most part, doctors, especially trauma doctors are doing their job and they do it well. They just don't like what they see. |
|
March 19, 2018, 09:19 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 12, 2010
Location: Lake Martin, AL
Posts: 3,311
|
Then you see the advertisements by ammunition and bullet manufactures about their products. One that comes to mind is along the lines of grenade bullet.
Yes, we who carry for defensive purposes want the best performance from our equipment. Hunters want the most humane thus quick death from their ammunition. On the other hand, those opposed to firearms are going to use the same language when innocent people are killed by bad people. |
March 19, 2018, 09:53 AM | #4 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
The most commonly available round for the AR-15 is the 55-grain M193, which is what we carried as standard issue when I was in Vietnam. The bullet has a cannelure (that ring of small notches or indentations that runs like a belt around the circumference about midway along the length of the bullet). The current 62-grain M855 ammo also has a cannelure. Both bullets are comparatively long, and tail-heavy. Upon impact with a target, they tumble -- the nose slows down and the tail flips off-axis and overtakes the nose. If the bullet is still traveling fast enough (and I don't remember the critical velocity but you can probably find it), the speed of the resultant tumbling generates enough force that the bullet jacket breaks at the cannelure and the bullet fragments. It was already tumbling -- ever see the ragged hole made when even a handgun bullet upsets and "keyholes"? Now factor in keyholing plus the bullet fragmenting. It creates a rather nasty wound channel. One of the arguments against the shorter M4 carbine in military use is simply that the loss of muzzle velocity results in the tumbling effect and resultant fragmenting not taking place except at comparatively short range. Without the tumbling and fragmentation, the AR-15 is basically just punching .22" holes. It's that tumbling and fragmenting that makes it an effective projectile. But does it "liquify" internal organs? That's an argument I have never encountered before, and I'm inclined to think it's just that doctor's anti-gun bias kicking in. [Edit to add] https://www.ar15.com/ammo-oracle/ Last edited by Aguila Blanca; March 19, 2018 at 10:02 AM. |
|
March 19, 2018, 09:55 AM | #5 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,714
|
Quote:
Quote:
I understand that bullets (typical ammo) does not explode in the actual chemical definition of exploding. Then again, the exploded diagram of my rifle does not fit that definition either. Many bullets do explode is the more common definitional sense that they come apart violently into many fragments. Look it up. His use of the term is not wrong. Quote:
Would you have been happy if the doctor provided a highly complex technical explanation for what is happening to these various body tissues? The problem with highly technical explanations is that so many people will not be able to understand them and they can be long and involved. The reporter likely would not have gotten all the technical jargon correct, LOL. Bullets, passing through the body, do not kill non-violently. That is what makes them good for what we do with them. That the doctor is using such insight is apparently what you see wrong with the information, but the doctor isn't all together wrong. In fact, he is quite right and I would argue that he has sugar-coated (not in the technical confectioner sense, but in the simile sense) some of his descriptions. Yeah, the doctor had an agenda, no doubt about it, but many of your complaints are without merit.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
|||
March 19, 2018, 11:53 AM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,289
|
I see many doctors sensationalizing gunshot wounds to push their agenda for tighter gun control.
In my state of Minnesota the Minnesota Medical Association has called for: Quote:
Their writings show they do not understand a gun can fire different kinds of bullets and that a bullet can be fired from different kinds of guns. Since they do not understand this I will not give their opinions on gun control much weight. |
|
March 19, 2018, 12:41 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,714
|
Okay, so they have shown some ignorance (though not in the actual wounds), and you have shown some ignorance as well. Where does that leave us?
Is this where you proclaim to boycott all doctors??
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
March 19, 2018, 01:57 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,289
|
Where does this leave us?
Good point. With the knowledge some folk in the medical community are sensationalizing gunshot wounds to demonize "assault weapons" and renewing a push for an "assault weapons" ban and other, tighter, gun control laws. I dislike their tactics because bullets from other guns, not "assault weapons", can, as we all here know, cause similar wounds. And nobody said anything about a boycott. |
March 19, 2018, 02:14 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 13, 2013
Location: N. Georgia
Posts: 1,150
|
Double Naught Spy,
Thank you for your description and analysis. In the early 1960s: From what I remember of a couple officers who viewed testing of the AR-15 and its puny .223 round, they were highly impressed by how various targets were "shredded," something completely different than the experience with armor piercing .30s. The whole point was that that "gun by Mattel" was a "shredder." |
March 19, 2018, 04:03 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2001
Posts: 6,285
|
Doctors in trauma care get into a weird situation where they see many people who are shot with little to no idea of the situation surrounding the shooting.
Add to that, that they have to get their game face on to save the shot person like that were the greatest person alive. ......but, how many times are they saving the thug who was shot up by the good guy, the less bad guy or the equally bad guy on the other end of the fight. How often did they really earn the death doc do good is saving them from? Then what they see from a good shot is the after effect of hydrolic shock due to the work the bullet does on the internals. Bullets don't explode. They expand and that expansion and slowing of the bullet increases hydrolic pressure which causes organs to over pressure and rupture. This occurs with a good shot and good ammo. Are thugs buying good ammo? Or is the thugs the receiver of more of these shots? Do thugs shoot accurately or is it when the good guy shoots that shots are on target? Are doctors saying that bad guys shouldn't be caught or shot? Hmmm? |
March 19, 2018, 05:35 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Hydrolic?
Anyway, here's my take. What sense does it make to say that doctors are sensationalizing the gun shot wounds. As pointed out by DNS, the effects can be as described as reported. Second, you have: 17 dead at Parkland 24 dead at Sutherland 58 killed at Las Vegas 49 at Orlando 25 at Sandy Hook Saying that some doctor mistakenly exaggerated the wounds? So what? Would it make a difference in the debate if all had died with a neat little hole? I'm sorry, this is the typical, let's make an excuse and try to say the gun isn't that bad a weapon? That argument goes nowhere fast. It shows no understanding of messaging, opinion formation and the purpose of the Second Amend. Folks chortle if someone says clip, if they use the term assault rifle incorrectly because the gun isn't full auto, or the caliber is just a 22. It would have been worse if the killer used a 338 Lapua. It's just a tool, like a hammer. You can hit someone in the head with a hammer. It's for sport! It's good for shooting birdies and bambies and squirrels. It's a modern sporting rifle. Point out that other guns are just as dangerous? BAN them also! So what? None of the excuse defense is effective or matters. The purpose of the 2nd Amend. is for efficacious instruments of lethal force to be used as weapons for self-defense and defend against tyranny. It is as useful as Wayne LaP. and the NRA arguing that the Godless left wants to take your guns so that an old toot professor and kindergarten teacher can make you kid into a SOCIALIST! So we need weapons of mass destruction (Sen. Manchin's description of ARs) to prevent this. Think that is going to change the mind of anyone listening to that messaging? It might raise money from the choir - oh, insight! Rant over.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
March 19, 2018, 06:30 PM | #12 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
March 19, 2018, 06:30 PM | #13 | |
Junior member
Join Date: March 17, 2018
Posts: 13
|
Quote:
And I don't have any assault rifles. All of mine are full semi automatic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xVQXCL2JGA&t=3s Last edited by wwhitman; March 19, 2018 at 06:46 PM. |
|
March 19, 2018, 08:19 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 2, 2005
Posts: 1,196
|
Like an explosive lens on a plutonium bomb this issue is only one of many focusing on one aspect of firearms. Singularly not much damage overall. But together all the focus points emit enough energy and then an implosion ensues.
I'm not so sure than criticality isn't achievable. |
March 19, 2018, 10:10 PM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 1, 2017
Posts: 391
|
Quote:
You're right, Glenn. The messaging is all wrong, and that's a big part of why the pro gun crowd is losing the argument over gun rights. Some of the things I've read coming from our side towards these kids protesting gun violence disgusts me. The "socialist" nonsense spewing forth from the NRA does nothing to further the cause. It's almost as if this whole debate has devolved into nothing more than a game of one-up. As long as we can come up with a better jab at the other side, then we're winning the argument. Let's see how much we can nitpick to make them look bad. Yeah, that's how we'll win! Tell them how stupid they are! I'm so sick of the whole damn thing! I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I do know this much--we lack the right kind of leadership. We need people who can speak for us who do not come across as gun crazed lunatics. We need people who know how to put together a respectful cogent argument in favor of gun rights, not the LaPierres of the gun world who go off on conspiratorial rants about evil socialists. Maybe it's too much to ask for. I don't know. I do, however, know that your post hit the nail on then head for me concerning my frustration with how we are going about this debate in our nation. The messaging is all wrong! |
|
March 20, 2018, 05:56 AM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
We have many people who construct measured, coherent and calm arguments in defense of the right. Ted Cruz did that in the Senate. Alan Gura did it in court. Kopel and Lott do it in articles. That you or I may prefer the arguments and demeanor of someone else doesn't itself mean that LaPierre has a message that's "all wrong". He may be well suited for his purpose.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
March 20, 2018, 07:16 AM | #17 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
Quote:
It may seem we're losing the debate in the court of public opinion, but that places far too much trust in social media. Facebook and Twitter aren't accurate gauges of public opinion. Remember, social media predicted a very different result to the 2016 election with near unanimity. It allows a vocal minority to seem like (and feel like) a greater percentage of the population than they actually are. Joe Sixpack owns guns. He votes. He works all day, and he's got a family to raise. He doesn't have time for social media, and on the rare occasions he catches CNN yammering about gun control, he changes the channel. He, not @SuzieSnowflakeMoonChild, is the majority. The medical community tried to steer the conversation in the early 1990's in the same way they're doing now. They pretty much preached to the choir while having little effect on public policy. While things like this are certainly annoying (and worth addressing when they come up), I'm not too worried. This is a battle to be won in the legislatures and courts, not medical journals and afternoon talk shows.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
||
March 20, 2018, 07:46 AM | #18 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
I'm sympathetic to the sentiment, but the facts can be read more neutrally: popular messages will not be littered with nuance and restraint. WWI german soldiers weren't actually woman stealing gorillas or brutes climbing in a person's window, but the message that propaganda sent was consumable by simple people. I like a limited and precise analysis modestly stated, but that is abnormal. It might not be the NRA's mission to state a case so precise and hushed that only a lawyer could love it. Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|||
March 20, 2018, 08:39 AM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Quote:
When folks say that they don't care anymore and are sick of arguing and the rhetoric turns out the choir, that's the problem. I don't think gun rights can be defended just by riling up the choir with arguments that turn off anyone who was trying to discern a reasonable take on the truth. Saying you don't want to convince folks or move opinion is having adopted a Maginot line defense and it will crumble over time. It's attractive to buy into group polarization and live in your own opinion bubble. I disagree with that and maybe am too optimistic that better messaging might work. We see that progun states can move against gun rights. Expect more of that.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
|
March 20, 2018, 09:02 AM | #20 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
Quote:
Persuasion seems to involve approaching someone on a wavelength and with a demeanor to which they are receptive. There will be a wide range of people receptive to many different approaches, both for re-enforcement and conversion. That a message doesn't resonate with one group doesn't mean that it missed the sweet spot with another. Quote:
You've been writing this frequently. Did someone notable seriously argue it?
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; March 20, 2018 at 09:11 AM. |
|||
March 20, 2018, 09:36 AM | #21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Who proposes that?
Read some posts Who argues it? Read and watch Wayne and Dana's latest
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
March 20, 2018, 10:02 AM | #22 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
Quote:
LaPierre did make a reference to socialism in his speech to CPAC. He described a movement in which individual rights aren't protected by a principle of limited government in front of a convention of people with a political and philosophical affinity for the idea of limited government. That's effective advocacy. You might not enjoy CPAC and might not view the dominant culture of the NRA as your own. I have such a reaction to the NRA, ACLU and Legal Aid, all of which do much good work. That is not a description of a problem with their message.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|||
March 20, 2018, 03:22 PM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 8, 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,786
|
zukiphile, go back to last month's American Rifleman and read LaPierre's column. Dr. Meyer's comments are only slight exaggerations. LaPierre rants about socialism and education, is overtly partisan, and comments on Obamacare and financing university education. (I don't have it hand to give you quotes.) Those are not the issues of the NRA. We should be a single-issue organization. As for partisanship, polls usually show something on the order of 1/3 of registered voters disagreeing with their party's line about gun control. Why would we want to alienate 1/3 of either party who agrees with us? That is something on the order of 50 million people whose support we reject by the rhetoric that is presented.
Is the goal firing up the base? Fund raising? Or changing minds by calmly presenting well-reasoned arguments for the protection of gun rights? Which of those goals stands the greatest hope of preserving gun rights for another generation? |
March 20, 2018, 06:57 PM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 8,235
|
I’ll admit I only read the first few posts.
I’ve seen bullet wounds on the battlefield and I’ve hunted. Frequently I’m surprised at what .223/5.56 can do. Even the old 55gr fmj can be ghastly. I’ve seen 40lb animals have limbs removed by some of the varmint bullets. If you ever want to know, just take a .223 hunting and get close to the game, it will change your opinion if you ever doubted the damage that little bullet causes. Yep, there are more powerful options out there, but a little bullet going super fast is nothing to discount. Especially at close ranges. I do however, understand that “military grade ammunition” is not the peak of power and destruction that has been playing in the media. You are not going to fool the public now that they’ve seen and heard ARs in real time. After Vegas, you’ll never convince the other side that they aren’t military style weapons. You’re not going to convince them that they cannot be fired at a rate similar to automatic fire, the world heard it. |
March 21, 2018, 03:08 AM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 8,563
|
Dr. Leana Wen - author of the NYT link - is pretty far out there.
She views just about everything as something that, with enough funding, the Health Department could address. One of her Tweets even claims racism is a health issue & the Health Department should have funding to address from that angle.. She's just goofy enough to be a future Surgeon General & really do some damage... |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|