Handgun stopping power

[44 AMP]

The 80-85% survival rate for handgun gunshot wounds comes from hospital emergency department and trauma center data collected over many years.

Ok, this explains a lot, and at the same time, shoots the claim (as written) in the ass.

The claim is stated as 80-85% of handgun gunshot wounds are survivable. based on ER and trauma center data, right?

Ok, its already skewed. Because its not 80-85% of all the people shot with handguns that make it, its 80-85% of the people shot with handguns who are alive when they get to the ER /Trauma center that make it.

I see a large difference there.

Not too long ago, there was a poor fellow, some kind of athlete if I remember right, died from a shot in the leg (and I think it was a .22 but don't recall clearly). Nicked the femoral artery, and he bled to death before he got to the hospital. He, and everyone shot by a handgun who was DRT or DOA, doesn't get counted in that 80-85% number. All those who expire before getting to the ER don't go to the ER, they go to the morgue, and I doubt they show up in ER statistics, since they never went there in the first place.

In the old west, infection killed, more often it appears than the bullet wound itself. The .41RF (most often the derringer) was a very feared weapon, because the outside lubricated bullet had about enough power to go halfway through a man. It was almost a certain killer, taking on the average, about two weeks or so...

I still figure every gunshot wound is a 50/50 thing. You live, or you don't. Other factors might change the odds of being on one side or the other, but everyone is always on one side of that coin, or the other, when they get shot.

[Road_Clam]

Very interesting statistics brought into light from the above linked Youtube vid. Years ago my thinking for a home defense weapon was my Glock G22 with a rail flashlight. After much research, accessing the layout of my ranch style home, and the fact we may have to confront a threat with sleeping persons in rooms , my wife and I made the decisions to have 2 tactical 12ga Mossberg 930's as defense weapons. High probability of a incapacitating hit in a highly stressed situation, and missed shots have a high probability of NOT passing through residential spec walls and striking unintended persons.

[Dano4734]

Life or death situation my thinking is unload everything you have and forget stopping power. Dump ten rounds and maybe just maybe. I would rather face excessive force and be alive than dead

[JohnKSa]

The claim is stated as 80-85% of handgun gunshot wounds are survivable. based on ER and trauma center data, right?

Ok, its already skewed. Because its not 80-85% of all the people shot with handguns that make it, its 80-85% of the people shot with handguns who are alive when they get to the ER /Trauma center that make it.

I do not see any reason to give credence to the idea that survival rates from firearm injuries are skewed by hospitals keeping two sets of books on firearm injuries based on whether or not the patient arrives dead or dies onsite.

But I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong. Is there actually any credible evidence that hospitals actually do keep their statistics in that fashion?

I still figure every gunshot wound is a 50/50 thing. You live, or you don't.

If you throw a pole with two flat ends into the air, there are only two options for how it will end up. It can end up lying on its side, or it could land balanced on one of the two ends. It lies flat or stands up--only two options. But one of those options is TREMENDOUSLY more likely than the other. The idea that the odds of an outcome are 50/50 because there are only two options is not at all based on fact.

[Troy800]

What? You mean the BG won't fly back three feet and hit the wall when I shoot him with my .45. Say it ain't so

[Dano4734]

It has to be true my brother, i saw it in every movie

[44 AMP]

historically 80-85% of handgun gunshot wound victims have survived.

Of course, I'm probably taking this too far, and too much at face value, but its the complete blanket declarative statement that I have an issue with.

since the invention of "hand gonnes" (in the early 1500s??) 80-85% of all the people shot with them all over the world have survived?. That's what this says to me, and I find it difficult to believe as a valid fact.
Had the statemen included such vital modifiers as "with access to modern medicine and modern transportation" I'd have a lot less issues with it.

For instance, if one were shot in a non-immediately fatal manner, say 40 miles from a hospital, and the fastest means of reaching medical care, or having it reach you, was a horse, I'd say your odds were much poorer than with modern medivac chopper. 40 miles (just for a number) of rainforest jungle is different than 40 miles in the LA basin...and so on..

As to hospitals keeping two different sets of books, I didn't mean to imply that, I don't think they do. My point was that people who die before they get to the hospital don't go on the hospitals books

IF the statement was "in recent decades, in civilized areas, 80-85% of handgun gunshot wound victims who did not receive immediately fatal wounds, have survived. " I'd have a lot fewer issues with that. But that wasn't what was said. So the OCD imp on my shoulder says, "its not right, don't let it go.."

Someone mentioned how animals are tougher than people. I don't think they are. I think they can be as individual as people are, but one thing does set us apart. Generally speaking, animals don't know what it means when they get shot. Modern people, generally do. And our minds have a powerful effect on our bodies. And it can range from the berserker who just won't stop until physically unable to move to the guy who's subconscious shuts him down because it knows what's expected when you get shot, having been trained for decades by movies and tv, to the guy who simply decides to stop consciously, so he won't get shot or shot, again.

We're all different. So are the animals. There is an old saying ("African") that "one day, you meet a lion on the trail, and he runs away. The next day, you meet his brother, and the village wonders why you do not come home for supper..."

The point here is that animals reactions can be as individual and different as human ones are.

[JohnKSa]

...since the invention of "hand gonnes" (in the early 1500s??) 80-85% of all the people shot with them all over the world have survived?. That's what this says to me, and I find it difficult to believe as a valid fact.

That's because it's not a valid fact as far as we know.

It is very reasonable to assume that the lethality of handguns has changed since they were invented several hundred years ago and that the survivability rate of handgun injuries differs signficantly throughout the world.

Although the qualifiers are not explicitly stated, it is generally understood that the assertion is not meant to cover the entire half-millennium history of handguns nor to apply to every possible region of the world. Taken in context it applies to modern times and to areas where modern medical facilities are available.

My point was that people who die before they get to the hospital don't go on the hospitals books.

If they aren't transported to the hospital, I could see why that would be true, but if they are transported to the hospital to be declared dead, why would the hospital not keep a record of that fact and the circumstances of the injury that resulted in the death? Again, I'm willing to be proven wrong--I've just never heard of this idea that hospitals don't keep any records on DOA patients and I can't imagine why it would be true.

[shurshot]

1stmar has it right... shot placement is THE telling factor. Many trappers and big cat hunters in the past have used .22 LR / head shots, so as to save the hide. Of course, a cat in a tree held at bay by dogs, or in a leghold trap may offer a better opportunity for a leisurely taken head shot. Quite a different thing to have one in front of you on a hiking trail, 5 yards away, snarling and ready to pounce. Talk about pucker factor!!!
Brain, spine or heart will usually result in immediate incapacitation if not death. That being said, I have seen firsthand big whitetail deer, heart shot with high power rifles (.308, .270, .243), that still traveled nearly 100 yards on pure adrenaline... dead on their feet. Others, hit in the shoulder or boiler room (heart / lung area), have dropped in their tracks. Shot placement is more important than caliber. Poachers in the past preferred accurate .22 rifles outfitted with scopes and flashlights / lanterns for good reason... they work.

[OhioGuy]

Originally Posted by Cyanide971

A great article concerning handgun stopping power or rather, the lack thereof against a determined assailant.

https://www.policeone.com/police-her...mo-on-the-job/

WOW.......

You gotta be pretty pissed to take 14 rounds and keep going...

[Mike Irwin]

"Not sure who said it, but, a pistol is just the starter gun for the fat man's race to his rifle."

I said it, conceptually, but I didn't actually say that...

My initial quote was...


My handguns are are for one purpose only, though...

The starter gun on the "Fat man's mad dash tactical retreat."

Said that back in 2009. One of the guys here has used it as part of his signature line since then.

[Road_Clam]

Originally Posted by shurshot

Of course, a cat in a tree held at bay by dogs, or in a leghold trap may offer a better opportunity for a leisurely taken head shot. Quite a different thing to have one in front of you on a hiking trail, 5 yards away, snarling and ready to pounce. Talk about pucker factor!!!

When I attended a home defense instructional class the instructor had volunteers immerse their hands in a bucket of ice water for 30 seconds then attempt a concealed holstered weapon deployment and fire, and perform a mag change. It proved to be quite difficult. This accurately simulates your body's reaction to a highly stressed , adrenalin filled situation. One should NOT assume you're good enough of a marksman to guarantee a single lethal shot. One should assume it make take several shot's placed in "center mass" to completely cease a deadly threat.

[Mike Irwin]

Well, if nothing else, that Elfritz video makes me more confident in my choice of carrying a .38 Special.

[Capt Rick Hiott]

Bla, Bla, Bla,,,,once again,,,shot PLACEMENT!

Plain and simple.

[shurshot]

Road Clam wrote "One should NOT assume you're good enough of a marksman to guarantee a single lethal shot. One should assume it make take several shot's placed in "center mass" to completely cease a deadly threat."
I agree, but with proper SHOT PLACEMENT... 2 center mass, one in the head (according to how I was trained in the failure drill. We didn't play in ice water, but trained in the cold and snow). Spray and pray usually doesn't work out well except in Hollywood. Shot placement is everything. If you can't "Accurately" place them center mass, you may have a serious problem if a big cat wants to lunge at you, or if a bad guy is attacking you.

[pblanc]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

I do not see any reason to give credence to the idea that survival rates from firearm injuries are skewed by hospitals keeping two sets of books on firearm injuries based on whether or not the patient arrives dead or dies onsite.

But I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong. Is there actually any credible evidence that hospitals actually do keep their statistics in that fashion?If you throw a pole with two flat ends into the air, there are only two options for how it will end up. It can end up lying on its side, or it could land balanced on one of the two ends. It lies flat or stands up--only two options. But one of those options is TREMENDOUSLY more likely than the other. The idea that the odds of an outcome are 50/50 because there are only two options is not at all based on fact.

There is a National Trauma Data Base and the Centers for Disease Control, both of which maintain data on the outcome of victims of all types of trauma, penetrating and blunt, including, of course, gunshot wounds. This data is available to researchers for meta-analysis. This data base extends back many decades, but not hundreds of years. Of course, mortality rates were much higher back in the days before general anesthesia, modern surgical care, antibiotics, aseptic technique, and effective emergency medical treatment and transport. And yes, this data is limited to the US.

Some medical centers with large trauma centers will also publish results of their collective experience over a number of years, and in some larger urban areas these studies might include several hundred cases.

Case fatality rates are given for various types of trauma. Of course, the case fatality rates include those patients who arrive DOA. Gunshot wound victims who have no signs of life at the scene or in transport are not just dropped off in dumpsters on the way to the hospital. Nor do they go directly to morgues or funeral homes. They wind up being declared in the Emergency Department. Even then, they are assigned a patient identification number and bracelet before going to the morgue, and Coroner. Someone who is found stone-cold dead of a gunshot wound out on the streets somewhere nearly always becomes a Coroner's case to establish the mechanism of death, etc, so they are included as well.

There are a number of gunshot wounds that do not appear in the registries because they wind up getting self-treated for various reasons. If these could be accounted for they would tend to skew the case fatality rate for gunshot wounds further downwards.

When looking at studies of the fatality rates for gunshot wounds, one has to take into account that some will include the outcome of all gunshot wounds. The great majority of these will be handgun wounds, but there will usually be a percentage of long gun wounds as well, which skews the case fatality rate higher. Some studies also include the outcome of intentionally self-inflicted gunshot wounds, i.e, suicides and suicide attempts. These self-inflicted gunshot wounds have a much higher fatality rate than those sustained as a result of assault or accident.

The vast majority of handgun gunshot wound victims who arrive at the hospital alive survive. I saw a moderate number of handgun wounds over the course of my career. I only saw one that arrived at the hospital with signs of life die. That was an individual who had a perforating brain injury from a self-inflicted .22 caliber handgun wound. He was later determined to be brain dead and probably was on arrival, but still had cardiopulmonary function on arrival.

[44 AMP]

Although the qualifiers are not explicitly stated, it is generally understood that the assertion is not meant to cover the entire half-millennium history of handguns nor to apply to every possible region of the world. Taken in context it applies to modern times and to areas where modern medical facilities are available.

I understand this, and essentially agree, however, when one puts the word "historically" in front of an assertion (and without explicitly stating any/all qualifiers), it opens the door to look at that assertion as it has applied throughout history.

ON the other hand, I suppose it is an irrelevant matter. What use is that statistic, anyway?

[briandg]

I'm surprised at how often the subject comes up and the bitter, harping, repetitive dogma that inevitably comes out. People quote the same old things, say the same old things, and generally speaking, if one collects all of the basic points made in a single list, every one of the long threads will say the same darned thing, repeating every single assertion, statistics that support the preferred answer will be paraded and others will rebut them.

People will always bring up the same old things, every time, because it's fun to do, or because they believe that someday, everybody in the world will agree.

[osbornk]

There have been several reasons mentioned as to why statistics on gunshot incidents are not accurate but there is one that nobody has mentioned. I think there are a lot of gunshot wounds that are not in statistics because the injured person never went to a hospital or other medical facility and they were never reported to authorities. Since the law requires that any gunshot injury be reported to the police, if the injury is treatable without a doctor, it heals and is never reported anywhere. I am an example. A few years ago, I dropped a 22 revolver that landed on the hammer and it went off. The bullet struck me in the stomach but because of the angle, it went in and out without doing much except causing me to bleed. If it had not been a gunshot wound, I would have gone to the emergency room but I treated it myself because I didn't want the police involved and the publicity it would have drawn. I suspect I am one of many.

[pblanc]

Originally Posted by osbornk

There have been several reasons mentioned as to why statistics on gunshot incidents are not accurate but there is one that nobody has mentioned. I think there are a lot of gunshot wounds that are not in statistics because the injured person never went to a hospital or other medical facility and they were never reported to authorities. Since the law requires that any gunshot injury be reported to the police, if the injury is treatable without a doctor, it heals and is never reported anywhere. I am an example. A few years ago, I dropped a 22 revolver that landed on the hammer and it went off. The bullet struck me in the stomach but because of the angle, it went in and out without doing much except causing me to bleed. If it had not been a gunshot wound, I would have gone to the emergency room but I treated it myself because I didn't want the police involved and the publicity it would have drawn. I suspect I am one of many.

Yes, as I said earlier, there are a substantial number of gunshot and knife wounds that go unreported either because the injury was obtained in the course of some criminal activity, or the victim is afraid of retribution from the attacker if it is reported, or the injury was acquired as a result of an embarrassing accident.

Obviously, virtually all of these unreported GSWs are non-fatal and if they were reported would slew the case fatality rate for GSWs in general significantly downward.

[Nanuk]

I do not see any reason to give credence to the idea that survival rates from firearm injuries are skewed by hospitals keeping two sets of books on firearm injuries based on whether or not the patient arrives dead or dies onsite.

But I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong. Is there actually any credible evidence that hospitals actually do keep their statistics in that fashion?

If someone is dead at the scene then the hospital will never know, unless they are the medical director of that EMS system and their DR called the vic.

If they did not provide treatment they would have no record of treatment and could not add that one to the stats.

I personally hate stats. I will go out on a limb and say that if you make it to a modern trauma center alive your chances are very good of survival. It is just that our emergency medical providers are so good they can get people to the ER with non survivable injuries.

[JohnKSa]

If someone is dead at the scene then the hospital will never know, unless they are the medical director of that EMS system and their DR called the vic.

Correct--that makes perfect sense. I mentioned that possibility in a subsequent post:

"If they aren't transported to the hospital, I could see why that would be true, but if they are transported to the hospital to be declared dead, why would the hospital not keep a record of that fact and the circumstances of the injury that resulted in the death?"

[Nanuk]

If they aren't transported to the hospital, I could see why that would be true, but if they are transported to the hospital to be declared dead, why would the hospital not keep a record of that fact and the circumstances of the injury that resulted in the death?"

They are not normally transported just to be called (declared dead). A paramedic in contact with medical direction ( a DR that oversees paramedics per a prior written agreement) can call in cases of obvious death.

[stagpanther]

Isn't there somebody called a coroner?

[Cosmodragoon]

... so how strong can a Mountain Lion be ?

They are amazingly agile but not much sturdier than a coyote. A relative of mine killed one with a handgun in .40 S&W using whatever usual defensive hollow-points.