Fatalities in Crime by caliber

[Glenn E. Meyer]

A different take on 'stopping power'

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2688536


The Association of Firearm Caliber With Likelihood of Death From Gunshot Injury in Criminal Assaults
Anthony A. Braga, PhD1; Philip J. Cook, PhD2
Author Affiliations Article Information
JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1(3):e180833. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0833



RESULTS The final sample of 511 gunshot victims and survivors (n = 220 fatal; n = 291 nonfatal) was
predominantly male (n = 470 [92.2%]), black (n = 413 [80.8%]) or Hispanic (n = 69 [13.5%]), and
young (mean [SD] age, 26.8 [9.4] years). Police investigations determined firearm caliber in 184
nonfatal cases (63.2%) and 183 fatal cases (83.2%). These 367 cases were divided into 3 groups by
caliber: small (.22, .25, and .32), medium (.38, .380, and 9 mm), or large (.357 magnum, .40, .44
magnum, .45, 10 mm, and 7.62 × 39 mm). Firearm caliber had no systematic association with the
number of wounds, the location of wounds, circumstances of the assault, or victim characteristics, as
demonstrated by χ2 tests of each cluster of variables and by a comprehensive multinomial logit
analysis. A logit analysis of the likelihood of death found that compared with small-caliber cases,
medium caliber had an odds ratio of 2.25 (95%CI, 1.37-3.70; P = .001) and large caliber had an odds
ratio of 4.54 (95%CI, 2.37-8.70; P < .001). Based on a simulation using the logit equation, replacing
the medium- and large-caliber guns with small-caliber guns would have reduced gun homicides
by 39.5%.

There are quite a few interesting charts with more detailed breakdowns.

9 mm most common. More shots in fatal shootings 6.11 vs. 4.41(seems obvious but this is a report). Seems in crimes, 3 is not enough?


Relative to shootings involving small-caliber firearms (reference
category), the odds of death if the gun was large caliber were 4.5 times higher (OR, 4.54; 95%CI,
2.37-8.70; P < .001) and, if medium caliber, 2.3 times higher (OR, 2.25; 95%CI, 1.37-3.70; P = .001).


It is plausible that larger reductions would be associated with replacing all types of
guns with knives or clubs.

[fixer]

This study has a creative interpretation of “ guns don’t kill , people kill”.

This study was done to support weapons legislation. They straight up admit it.

Nothing like admitting you are goal seeking your conclusion.

Besides the calibers they selected pertain to handguns mostly although there was one category for 7.62 but not 5.56 or 12 gauge.

Their main conclusions are that lethality should be the factor used to legislate weapons restrictions.

The problem here is

1) the anti gun industrial complex has lectured us for decades that more than 10 rounds is a killing machine. This is a huge canard for the gun control goons. This study doesn’t help one bit.
2) rate of fire not tested
3) you can infer that a two round break open with slugs would be higher on lethality than other weapons and hence make it more of a priority for further restrictions. Ummmm yeah good luck with that.
4) their sticks and stones argument is laughable.

[RevolverRob]

The inclusion of 7.62x39 in the 'large caliber' category almost certainly skews these data dramatically up.

If they'd excluded the rifle caliber, I'd guess that the numbers between medium and large caliber, handguns, would balance out to be near even, with a slight edge to larger calibers (as BehindBlueI's has discussed, larger calibers tend to make it through barriers better, given FMJ or cheap HPs).

__

I doubt very seriously the number of deaths would be reduced with stabbings or blunt force. That's pure conjecture that does not match up with reality of human anatomy. Bullets are small, knives and clubs are not. The targets to hit in humans to kill them are medium/large sized, but fairly well protected by bone. If you use a larger object, you can smash through the protection with ease.

Blades poke bigger holes than bullets AND people tend to get stabbed A LOT. You shoot someone 4-times with a 9mm, you put four holes for them to bleed out of in them. I take a knife and jam it into you 15 times and now you're bleeding from...15 holes. How many holes did it take to reach fatality on average? ~6. Guess whose probably dead (maybe not, maybe I only stabbed you 15 times in the ass, but you get the idea).

__

[RevolverRob]

4) their sticks and stones argument is laughable.

Oh come on man, we all know, no humans nor our ancestors, died from being stabbed or bludgeoned, before the advent of guns. It was only with guns that knives, clubs, spears, bows and arrows, rocks, etc. became deadly objects.

No one was ever stabbed to death by Egyptians three millennia before gun powder was invented.

[fixer]

Jama jumping into this is fantastic for dnc because now they can label gun control measures as being “science”!!!!!!!

[SiriusBlunder]

Existing thread/Previous Discussion:

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?35934-Caliber-With-Likelihood-of-Death-From-Gunshot-Injury

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Oops, just got it in a scientific news feed today and should have searched if already posted. My bad.

Mods can close it.

[jh9]

Existing thread/Previous Discussion:

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?35934-Caliber-With-Likelihood-of-Death-From-Gunshot-Injury

It's come up a couple times since then as well.

It's also, afaik, the only report I've seen that called out that over 80% of their shootings are in the gang or drug "circumstance" category. I'd like to see more of those laid out in writing because it's a pretty important when people start talking about things like supermarket shootings.

[Nephrology]

A different take on 'stopping power'

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2688536


The Association of Firearm Caliber With Likelihood of Death From Gunshot Injury in Criminal Assaults
Anthony A. Braga, PhD1; Philip J. Cook, PhD2


Lol. Two PhDs talking about GSWs. That's like two Rabbis talking about bacon. Whatever expertise they have could not possibly be less relevant.

[jh9]

That's like two Rabbis talking about bacon.

Checkmate (https://vegan.com/food/bacon/)

[SiriusBlunder]

Oops, just got it in a scientific news feed today and should have searched if already posted. My bad.

Mods can close it.

No worries. It's kinda like "bumping" and can bring up new ideas/thoughts from folks not involved in the original thread. I asked the mods to combine so all discussion is in one place.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

They could be reformed? Anyway, I have a news feed of scientific literature that has a violence and weapons issues subsection (does a lot of things, like vehicle accidents, etc). It came up with this today in a piece they abstracted, so I thought it was interesting. The authors are known to be negative about guns.

[Nephrology]

Checkmate (https://vegan.com/food/bacon/)

Pls. That's not bacon.

[jh9]

Pls. That's not bacon.

It's a horrible thing that I know exists.

So now you have to know it too. :p

[Glenn E. Meyer]

There is turkey bacon and sausage. My local market sells turkey pastrami. Now, it is nothing like a good pastrami from the kosher deli but as lunch meat in the abstract, it isn't bad on a sandwich.

I used to gorge on a turkey, pastrami club on a french roll, order of Potato pancakes and a bottle of Heinkeins when I lived in Brooklyn. Now that will kill you on da street.

[OlongJohnson]

Checkmate (https://vegan.com/food/bacon/)


Smoky, chewy, and full of flavor, no other meat gets anything close to the hype bestowed upon bacon. Unfortunately, bacon just might be the world’s most terrible food when it comes to health, the environment, and animal cruelty. As a cured meat, bacon is heavily associated with colon cancer. Pig farms are infamous for polluting local waterways. And bacon is commonly sourced from farms that subject their pigs to appalling conditions.

All I see is a great argument for hunting wild piggies.

Although I'll throw in a, "Just say no to Dr. Kellogg and crew."

Also, if anyone knows where I can get bacon not cured with citric acid, I would be very grateful for the information.