Appendix followup

[YVK]

Sweet Jesus...
Based on bony landmarks, that bullet likely missed her common femoral artery as it almost always divides higher than where her injury is. It is impossible to say by the X-ray, but based on your post, it hit one branch of common femoral, not both (?). If that were the case, it could have helped with the amount of extravasation. In addition, if SFA was a branch affected, it is relatively easier to compress externally than profunda. The head of a femoral bone, that part that goes into a socket, is the level where one wants to compress manually, and that theoretically can stop bleeding completely. Nevertheless, this X ray is terrifying.

[GJM]

Let's talk statistics and consider drawing, disregarding appendix versus OWB and focus on a hypothetical accident rate of 1/500,000 for a self inflicted gunshot. No data, just for this example, to see whether we agree just on the statistics.

I don't believe the probability of a bad outcome on a single draw, on an individual basis is cumulative, unlike for example, smoking, which has a cumulative bad effect. In other words, if the probability of shooting yourself is 1 in 500,000 (just an example) on draw 1, that probability will not change on future draws. While the probability won't change on an individual draw, I believe it is true that after enough draws to be competent, the more draws you do the greater your risk is cumulatively, by virtue of rolling the 1/500,000 dice over and over. And if you studied a very large group, over a great many draws, you would expect the overall group to experience the expected accident rate.

Are we in agreement so far?

[YVK]

Let's talk statistics and consider drawing, disregarding appendix versus OWB and focus on a hypothetical accident rate of 1/500,000 for a self inflicted gunshot. No data, just for this example, to see whether we agree just on the statistics.

I don't believe the probability of a bad outcome on a single draw, on an individual basis is cumulative, unlike for example, smoking, which has a cumulative bad effect. In other words, if the probability of shooting yourself is 1 in 500,000 (just an example) on draw 1, that probability will not change on future draws. While the probability won't change on an individual draw, I believe it is true that after enough draws to be competent, the more draws you do the greater your risk is cumulatively, by virtue of rolling the 1/500,000 dice over and over. And if you studied a very large group, over a great many draws, you would expect the overall group to experience the expected accident rate.

Are we in agreement so far?

Yes and no. The 1/half mil rate will remain constant over a period of time as long as a group makeup is unchanged. Because the group is heterogeneous, you can fully expect that rates for different subsets will be different too. Suppose novices are whacking themselves at a rate of 1/100,000 and aces are at 1/900,000, and their proportions are equal. The aces, should they continue to keep drawing so they all can be like Gabe, will be continually exposed to a risk, but not at average 1/500K but almost twice lesser rate.

[BJJ]

Very recently in san antonio a cop shot himself in the femoral from the draw and died. Running aiwb

Got a link?

[YVK]

It hit both. The femoral vein was also hit.

I'll be damned. I've had to compress on vein and sfa, and vein and profunda once, but not all three.
This rates pretty close to my case of three holes in a heart from 22lr, well and alive now.

[ToddG]

1. If you studied a "very large group" that was identical to the group that lead to the 1/500k number, yes. If that group was made up of LEOs shooting Glocks with NY+ triggers I wouldn't expect the number to be identical among IDPA shooters using 2# Glock triggers.

2. If (and only if) we take it as wrote that the odds of a draw resulting in an AD is necessarily and always regardless of shooter, circumstance, etc. one in five hundred thousand, statistically the odds of having an AD on any given draw will always be 0.0002%. The odds of having an AD in x-number of rounds is 1-(0.9998)^x percent. Though ordinarily you'd do the math as 1-(0.999998)^x and you'd get a non-percentage probability. So over the course of 100,000 draws you'd statistically have a probability of 0.181269 (18.1269%) of having an AD.
(from a sig figs standpoint, I'm assuming that your number is 5.00000*10^5)

This all revolves around the made up number of 0.000002 which we're just using as an example.

And for folks who've followed along this far but aren't math folks, if the odds of an AD are 1 in 500,000 tries do you know what the odds of an AD are if you try 500,000 times? A little more than 63%. Because math.

[JustOneGun]

Let's talk statistics and consider drawing, disregarding appendix versus OWB and focus on a hypothetical accident rate of 1/500,000 for a self inflicted gunshot. No data, just for this example, to see whether we agree just on the statistics.

I don't believe the probability of a bad outcome on a single draw, on an individual basis is cumulative, unlike for example, smoking, which has a cumulative bad effect. In other words, if the probability of shooting yourself is 1 in 500,000 (just an example) on draw 1, that probability will not change on future draws. While the probability won't change on an individual draw, I believe it is true that after enough draws to be competent, the more draws you do the greater your risk is cumulatively, by virtue of rolling the 1/500,000 dice over and over. And if you studied a very large group, over a great many draws, you would expect the overall group to experience the expected accident rate.

Are we in agreement so far?

If you're talking about my post, then no we don't agree. Statistically you can shoot yourself on roll one of the dice and after recovering you can then shoot yourself on roll two of the dice. While I never shoot myself after over a million rolls.

If you believe the stats apply to you individually then I'm assuming you are a minimalist when it comes to round count in training? Shooting just enough to be competent and then stopping? Because surely with every bullet you train with you are increasing your chance of killing yourself or someone else. Practice shooting enough over the years and you are going to shoot someone no matter how safe you are. You will hit the magic statistical number and bam, the guy next to you is shot?

Statistics are valuable and point us in general directions. But for us individually; as Brooks says, "They are the useless children of hindsight."

[YVK]

Because surely with every bullet you train with you are increasing your chance of killing yourself or someone else. Practice shooting enough over the years and you are going to shoot someone no matter how safe you are.

There's a significant disconnect between these two sentences. The first one is true by means of increasing exposure to otherwise constant rate of risk. The second isn't, because there is no exposure threshold after which chance becomes a certainty.

[GJM]

1. If you studied a "very large group" that was identical to the group that lead to the 1/500k number, yes. If that group was made up of LEOs shooting Glocks with NY+ triggers I wouldn't expect the number to be identical among IDPA shooters using 2# Glock triggers.

2. If (and only if) we take it as wrote that the odds of a draw resulting in an AD is necessarily and always regardless of shooter, circumstance, etc. one in five hundred thousand, statistically the odds of having an AD on any given draw will always be 0.0002%. The odds of having an AD in x-number of rounds is 1-(0.9998)^x percent. Though ordinarily you'd do the math as 1-(0.999998)^x and you'd get a non-percentage probability. So over the course of 100,000 draws you'd statistically have a probability of 0.181269 (18.1269%) of having an AD.
(from a sig figs standpoint, I'm assuming that your number is 5.00000*10^5)

This all revolves around the made up number of 0.000002 which we're just using as an example.

And for folks who've followed along this far but aren't math folks, if the odds of an AD are 1 in 500,000 tries do you know what the odds of an AD are if you try 500,000 times? A little more than 63%. Because math.

Whoa, this math has now exceeded my pay grade. When did you become such a math whiz -- I bet JV or Josh helped you with this.

Isn't a large factor in the probability a function of whether the event is truly random or not? In other words, despite the probability of winning the IDPA Nationals being 1/X, Robert Vogel's chances are a lot better than mine. But, if the probability is receiving a prize pulled out of the pool of participants, everyone has the same odds. This goes to the question of skill versus chance. Another example being successful on a difficult mountain route versus being hit by a rock standing at the bottom of the route. Mark Twight way ahead on climbing the route but having the same odds as me of being hit by a rock.

An interesting question is what percentage of highly skilled shooters have had a ND? Was this a skill issue, pure chance or a combination. Got to run.

[YVK]

Yo, descend to 20K or put an oxygen mask on so we are at the same level of aeration when talking Vogel pulling prizes out of participants while climbing the rock.