|
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 |
August 10, 2018, 07:14 AM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 14, 2001
Posts: 1,246
|
In order for their statistics to be scientifically relevant, the parameters would need to include more ballistic factors. Leaving out the velocity and weight, material and shape of the projectile is ignoring too many ballistic factors that have too large an influence on lethality and wounds ballistics to consider this research scientific.
This looks more like a highschool project of rather untalented and unmotivated kids than of what I would expect from medical doctors. |
August 10, 2018, 07:43 AM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 4,322
|
PzGren, you're right on.
In the case of Grainger vs. FN, note the 5.7 "wound" in the solid circle vs. the 2 BMG "wounds" in dashed circles. The 5.7 tumbled and made a mess while the .50 BMG rounds were still longitudinally stable at the exit. (the dashed square is a 9mm solid round) The point is there's significantly more involved in 'lethality' than the simplistic views of JAMA. JAMA might be more objective and better serve the public by sticking to articles such as "How to read a rectal thermometer".
__________________
Cave illos in guns et backhoes |
August 10, 2018, 12:44 PM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 18, 2009
Posts: 1,321
|
The authors of that article might have an aneurysm if they saw expanded 45 HST
9mm on dimes top, 45 on quarters bottom
__________________
Strive to carry the handgun you would want anywhere, everywhere; forget that good area bullcrap. "Wouldn't want to / Nobody volunteer to" get shot by _____ is not indicative of quickly incapacitating. |
August 11, 2018, 06:36 AM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 28, 2013
Posts: 3,151
|
The most interesting aspect of the article as stated is that the majority of the cases studied were either gang violence or drug related. So they think that all law abiding citizens should be armed with less lethal weapons because it might have some kind of benefit on saving criminals lives. Some real logical thinking going on there. I switched doctors a few years ago and when filling out he usual paperwork they asked if I owned any guns, and how many. I wrote down none of your da** business. I never heard a word about that again.
|
August 11, 2018, 10:46 AM | #30 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
We're not under oath when filling out a form in a doctor's office, so I see no reason not to simply answer in the negative. |
|
August 11, 2018, 12:52 PM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 14, 2001
Posts: 1,246
|
Some hospitals are requiring doctors to ask that question, they are also very intrusive into doctors lives when it comes to smoking. My oldest son is a doctor in emergency medicine he cannot smoke hookah anymore but has a small collection of guns that he enjoys. He has a carry permit and is only aware of one other doctor in his hospital ( from Texas ) who has a carry permit.
I guess that once he has his student loans paid off, he will expand his small collection, which he mostly got from me and had the AR built for him by his "little" brother. His two cousins who are also doctors sadly do not own any guns personally but their husbands do. Last edited by PzGren; August 11, 2018 at 01:04 PM. |
August 11, 2018, 01:19 PM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 29, 2010
Location: Shoshoni Wyoming
Posts: 2,713
|
"When in college, I had a professor that taught us that you can prove anything with statistics."
Yeah that can be true at times "Figures don't lie, but liars can sure figure". I can't say is the motives of the report by the JAMA is pure in it's motives or not, but frankly I don't care much either. See,----- the emperor is actually naked. As a hunter of over 50 years of experience and a military man with nearly 18 years experience combined, USMC, DOD and Consultant to military unites of allied nations (all of which was involved with "trigger pulling and trigger pullers") I can tell you what is important about killing and stopping, and it's actually quite simple. Here it is in a nut shell. Guns don't kill Cartridges don't kill. Even bullets don't kill. Bullet HOLES kill! So when we look at bullet holes in people and in game it always comes down to only 2 factors that can be linked to the bullet and/or cartridge. #1 is penetration. #2 is cavitation. That's it. That's all there is. There is nothing else. So if we have enough power to drive a bullet clear through a target we have 100% penetration. It just can't get any better then that. Next we have the study of cavitation. That simply means how big around the hole is, and how straight it is, both of which equate to square centimeters or square inches of displaced tissue and bone. There are many many many studies and a mountain of papers all about the effects of shooting game and people on a case by case basis and also about generalities. Some of those studies are agenda driven and others are simply a compilation of facts. Some are trying very hard to "prove" that bullets "A" is better then bullet "B" and some are just showing what killed or stopped the animal or man the fastest. Let's look at some facts. Something that we can all see without any study at all. Things that have no arguments. Fact #1. 100% of all animals and all people that have had their head separated from their neck have stopped immediately. Why? Because the brain is destroyed or separated from the body, and it's the body that does all the moving, but the body stops when the brain is removed. Fact #2 A hole clear through the torso of any man or animal that is 12" in diameter (size of a 1 foot irrigation pipe) would never be less effective than the same wound trajectory that was only 1" in diameter. Why? Because a 12" hole would drop the blood pressure to zero a LOT faster then a 1" hole, and a 12" hole would break the spine nearly every time whereas a 1" hole may or may not. Sound silly? Well it's not so silly as you may think. See.... if we are looking for the ultimate in "stopping power" we have to look first at those things that are truly 100%. No one ever has continued to attack after their body was blown into 50 pieces of roughly equal size. Right? No one has ever continued to attack after their head was cut or blown off. Right? So when looking at bullet holes we have to acknowledge that we cannot get as effective as an RPG or a broad sword. What we want to do is get as close as we can. The only thing that does more damage for a bullet then giving 100% penetration is to give more and more cavitation along with that 100% penetration. So if we through out the XYZ and the ABC "reports" and simply look at the HOLES left by various bullets at various ranges we see the truth of the matter. What is vital, far more so then all the ABC and XYZ reports can cover is what was hit inside the body of the enemy or animal. The skill (or luck) of the shooter is really far more important then all the rest of the tripe. We can build skills but we can't make good luck. This is why good hits with a 9MM do so much better then bad hits with a 44 mag. It's the reason good hits with a 243 kill deer so much better then bad hits with a 458. But the part that we can have a lasting and positive effect on is our skill level and if a skilled marksman shoots a good bullet that exists all the time, and always hits the place he wants to hit, you see close to 100% instant stops. And that can be with a small caliber pistol and it can be with a 375H&H rifle. So to see the truth and know what really works, you shoot the gun you can actually use (factoring in the ability to have it at the time you need it as well as the ballistic power, and trying to balance the 2 as best you can) Agendas are to be ignored. Any gun will do if you can do the job with that gun. Smaller calibers and less power is often easier to shoot well and easier to carry, so a gun you have is ALWAYS better than any gun you don't have when you need a gun. But for "stopping power, it's only 3 things. Penetration. 100% is best. Cavitation. Larger is better then smaller. Marksmanship. Good hits are better than bad ones even if they may lack some degree of #1 and #2 above. #3 is the most important. Last edited by Wyosmith; August 11, 2018 at 01:33 PM. |
August 11, 2018, 02:12 PM | #33 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
|
|
August 11, 2018, 02:18 PM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 5, 2010
Location: Santa Fe, NM
Posts: 474
|
and yet, the FBI just went back to 9mm....guess they want you to suffer, but not die, so they can convict you and then let you die in prison.
i'm very confused. |
August 11, 2018, 04:37 PM | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 5,292
|
The authors had 25 references listed at the end of their article but "Cartridges of the World" was not one of them...pity...could brought a whole 'nother dimension to their discussion.
|
August 15, 2018, 08:37 AM | #36 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,715
|
Quote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.f7b61386789b Of course, not all of this is said in the article, but goes with the lighter recoiling 9mm.
__________________
"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 |
|
August 15, 2018, 02:50 PM | #37 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 2,525
|
Quote:
That depends on what you are trying to measure. The number of shots fired could certainly be important if we are trying to determine the "intent" of the attacker which was important to the study. |
|
August 15, 2018, 04:43 PM | #38 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
Quote:
Does wanting to kill someone make a round more deadly? Shooting someone, or shooting at them, is not a benign act. Necessary sometimes, but its NEVER done with benign intent. Seems pretty clear to me, when people get shot by other people, other than actual accidents, the intent was to shoot them. if you are going to discuss the lethal effectiveness of various rounds, what possible connection can the shooters intent be to that?? Like wise, all misses, and non-lethal hits. There is a difference between the capability of the round, and a shooter's ability to use it efficiently. Two very different subjects.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
August 15, 2018, 05:07 PM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 2,525
|
Sounds like you agree with the premise of the study. From the study:
While speculative, recent studies suggest a continuing trend toward greater wound severity associated with the greater power of firearms in common use.9,10 (Improved trauma care may have prevented an increase in the national case-fatality rate.11) It is widely accepted among medical and public health professionals that the likelihood of death in an assault increases with the power of the gun.2,3,6-8,12 But that belief is routinely challenged by advocates and some social scientists in the national debate over gun regulation.13,14 The opposing view holds that it is not the type of weapon that determines whether the victim lives or dies, but rather the intent of the assailant.13-17 This notion is captured by the old slogan “guns don’t kill people; people kill people.” In this view, an assailant who is determined to kill will do what is necessary to accomplish that purpose, regardless of weapon type.11-19 As a logical corollary, the 1 in 6 who die from a gun assault differ from those who survive with respect to the shooter’s intent and determination. In effect, the criminal law and the courts conform with this view by treating a fatal shooting as a more serious crime than a nonfatal shooting. The outcome of the shooting (life or death) is viewed as a reliable guide to the intent—the determination to kill—of the shooter. The most severe punishments, including the death penalty and life in prison, are reserved for cases in which the victim dies. In 1972, Franklin Zimring published a seminal article that challenged the belief that the outcome of the shooting was primarily determined by the intent of the shooter.20 He found that nonfatal and fatal shootings were very similar with respect to the circumstances and observed characteristics of the victims and assailants. In effect, the survivors were “lucky” in that in many cases a small change in the path of the bullet would have resulted in the victim’s death. A notable pattern in Zimring’s data was that the likelihood of death was correlated with the caliber of the assailant’s firearm. He concluded that the outcome of gun assaults had a large random element, and that the power of the firearm was one systematic factor influencing the likelihood that an individual with a gunshot injury would survive, a phenomenon he dubbed “instrumentality.” The contrary view is that the caliber of the gun is simply a reflection of the assailant’s determination to kill, with little independent influence on the probability of death.11-19 The importance of instrumentality in the gun debate is illustrated by findings from a recent survey of experts by the RAND Corporation. Respondents were asked to estimate the effect on the overall homicide rate of a policy that was successful in reducing the firearms homicide rate. Those respondents who on other items had favored permissive firearms regulation tended to believe that assailants would substitute other weapons with nearly the same effect, unlike those respondents who favored more restrictive regulations: “Median responses by the permissive class suggested that 90 percent of prevented firearm homicides would end as a homicide by another means, and median responses by the restrictive class estimated that just 20 percent would. The middle 50 percent of responses from each group (ie, between the 25th and 75th percentile) did not overlap.”21 The relative importance of chance vs intention in determining the likelihood of death cannot be measured because there is no direct measure of intention in available data. But if Zimring is correct that the caliber of the gun in an assault is not correlated with systematic factors such as the skill and determination of the assailant, then the pattern of case-fatality rates across calibers provides a clean test of instrumentality, akin to an experiment. This study follows the original Zimring analysis but with better data and more sophisticated statistical techniques. |
August 15, 2018, 05:35 PM | #40 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
A number of years ago, in my home town, a man who worked for the Town was killed by a man he was hunting with. One of them shot a deer, but it ran off. The victim tracked it, found it, and was field dressing it. Apparently he [stupidly] removed his blaze orange vest or jacket, slit open the deer, and then lifted the upper torso up to let it bleed out. The other guy saw a deer's head through the woods and took a shot. The shot killed his hunting partner. So the shot was, by definition, lethal. The intent was to be lethal to a deer, not to a human. Does that change anything for the dead guy, or his family? |
||
August 15, 2018, 05:57 PM | #41 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 2,525
|
The point of the study is to prove that intent doesn't matter and the gun used is what is important.
|
August 16, 2018, 01:34 AM | #42 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
Thank you for the excerpt from the study. TO me, it points to a number of "disconnects" in logic. A big one is using "shooting" or "assault" instead of "murder". And I believe that while intent does have an effect on the final outcome, it has nothing to do with the mechanical ability of a bullet to kill.
Citizens defending themselves is a different matter than assault with intent to kill. Defense shooting is done to STOP an attacker. Whether they live or die as a result of being stopped is not relevant. To be blunt, if I meant to kill you, I would shoot you, and shoot you more than once, and keep shooting you until I was certain you were dead. My intent would be to kill you, and I would use whatever means I had to get the job done. If I were really serious, I'd drive a stake through your heart, fill your mouth with garlic, cut off your head, burn both separately, and scatter the ashes at a cross roads. Doing all that changes the lethality of my large or small caliber gun not one whit. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is correct, but too many people no longer remember the unspoken part of the phrase, which is "guns don't kill people BY THEMSELVES... And, yes, of course the law considers killing more serious than wounding, because someone DIED! The law considers intent, as a factor in PUNISHMENT, not anything else. Quote:
There is a significant difference. Homicide can be murder, or it can be justified, or even accidental. Either way, a person is dead, but it is intent that determines the legal classification. Lump too many distinctly different situations under the term "shooting" and the study is flawed, and its conclusions are worthless.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
August 16, 2018, 06:49 AM | #43 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Why do gun control researchers always sound like a bunch of six year old boys speculating on how babies are produced? Sounds like this group got ahold of an old Playboy magazine and got themselves really mixed up.
|
August 16, 2018, 07:26 AM | #44 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 2,525
|
Quote:
Yep. You would try to shoot me as many times as you thought necessary to kill me if that was your goal. If your goal is to scare me into compliance with your robbery threats, you might fire a shot at my leg. If you were a law abiding citizen defending against an attack by me, you would try to shoot me as much as necessary to get me to stop my attack. In all of these cases, intent could play a role in whether I live or die. In what seems like an effort to make the gun the center of attention, the study purports to debunk the claim that intent is important but it doesn't try to quantify intent so it can be compared to what it calls "caliber." The study does make an attempt to separate multiple wounds from a single wound and that seems to be a huge factor in mortality. The study doesn't properly categorize the cartridges it examines by caliber yet suggest the results be used to regulate caliber. The study claims that caliber, not intent, is the important factor in whether a victim lives or dies but makes no attempt to measure intent. As gun people, we argue over what is the best hunting or defensive cartridge and we argue over particular loads of those cartridges. There are obviously differences in power of various cartridges and loadings of those cartridges but I think the best way to compare these is using tissue simulants as I don't think the study does an adequate job of accounting for the different variables. |
|
August 16, 2018, 10:49 AM | #45 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Bah.
"Everyone knows" that .223 Remington (a.k.a. 5.56x45mm) is too wimpy to use for hunting whitetail deer (according to several state governments), yet it's lethal enough for our soldiers to carry into combat. Go figure. Last edited by Aguila Blanca; August 16, 2018 at 09:46 PM. Reason: typo |
August 16, 2018, 05:35 PM | #46 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 2, 2005
Location: Where the deer and the antelope roam.
Posts: 3,082
|
According to the chart 91% of shootings the caliber was unknown. Not to mention that only 60 of 300 survivors were looked at.
Very flawed "study".
__________________
Retired Law Enforcement U. S. Army Veteran Armorer My rifle and pistol are tools, I am the weapon. |
August 16, 2018, 11:45 PM | #47 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
Quote:
I have seen game laws where a certain gun and caliber are legal, and the exact same gun and caliber with a 1.5" shorter barrel are not legal. I have seen laws where buckshot is not legal for deer, but IS legal for hunting black bear, in exactly the same location... As the old saying goes, it doesn't have to make sense, its the law!
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
August 17, 2018, 05:31 AM | #48 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 29, 2005
Location: Orlando FL
Posts: 1,934
|
The various shooting sports, that more or less simulate targets that somewhat copy the human shape, IDPA/IPSC to name two of these. Mostly call for two hits per target. And the area of the target that gets the best score 5 points, is the centre of mass, so two hits in that area, score 10 points, a perfect score.
And the calibre (size) of the projectile is not differentiated at all! So in the lethality of these sports targets, really are saying, by definition, were you hit (accuracy) is more important, than what you hit it with, again calibre? And also hitting twice is better than once? IE the infamous Double Tap! All of this never comes up, because it's only a sport? Sure. |
August 17, 2018, 08:58 AM | #49 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
|
|
August 18, 2018, 08:40 AM | #50 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 14, 2001
Posts: 1,246
|
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|