Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26

Thread: Caliber With Likelihood of Death From Gunshot Injury

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn NY

    Caliber With Likelihood of Death From Gunshot Injury

    The Association of Firearm Caliber With Likelihood of Death From Gunshot Injury in Criminal Assaults

    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2688536



    A cross-sectional study using 5 years of data extracted from investigation files kept by the Boston Police Department determined that the case-fatality rates of assaults inflicting gunshot injury increased significantly with the caliber of the firearm. Caliber was not significantly correlated with other observable characteristics of the assault, including indicators of intent and determination to kill.
    The NYT is pushing this study today..


    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...lets-guns.html
    "To achieve any significant technological breakthrough, much Derp must be endured." -Rich@CCC
    "Your shotgun is running a bit frenetic, you should add some lavender to your lubricant, that should calm it down." -Aray, Oils and Lotions SME


  2. #2
    Few things come to mind:

    1) This study doesn't differentiate from FMJ and HP ammo which makes a big difference. How many thugs are shooting quality HP defensive ammo? Not many I would guess.

    2) Lumping .380 and 9mm into one group and then 10mm and 7.62 into another group and comparing those two with the conclusion that "bigger bullets are more deadly" produces nothing more than a "well duh" response from me.

  3. #3
    It's an interesting study, but flawed.

    They mention that only 1/6 shootings are fatal, yet their sampling does not include nearly enough non-fatal shootings relative to fatal ones:

    "Official incident reports for 221 homicides and 1012 nonfatal gun assaults where victims and survivors sustained gunshot wounds were accessed through the Boston Police Department (BPD). These represent all cases known to the BPD for the period January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2014, that were deemed to be criminal by the BPD (not justified or self-inflicted). The research team did not have the resources to code all of the nonfatal cases, and instead selected a stratified random sample of 300 gunshot survivors by randomly selecting 60 survivors per year....The final nonfatal shooting survivor sample included 291 individuals and the final fatal shooting victim sample included 220 individuals."

    So they analyzed 100% of the fatal shootings, but only 29% of the non-fatal shootings, despite non-fatal shootings being 450% larger.

    I believe this is a fatal flaw in analyzing the role of large calliber in survivable shootings.

    That said, some of the data is interesting.

    Here's the breakdown by caliber:



    Whats really striking is that .357 is deadly af. Only 5 non-fatal shootings vs 13 fatal. None of the other calibers are close to that ratio.

    Whether thats a function of .357 master race, an error due to low sampling of survivors, or the fact that .357 is hardly ever loaded with FMJ, remains to be seen.

  4. #4
    The other interesting data point is the background of the victims.

    Unsurprisingly, not being involved in Gangs of Drugs dramatically lowers ones chances of being shot:


  5. #5
    Hoplophilic doc SAWBONES's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Third Dimension
    Read this earlier.

    Typical trash pseudo-science "medical research" by people with no knowledge of terminal ballistics in specific or of firearms in general, but with an agenda against gun ownership, all dressed up to look respectable and authoritative.

    Too few "large caliber" shootings for any sort of conclusions to be drawn.
    No distinctions made among different bullet designs, nor between handgun vs. 7.62x39 rounds.


    I've been seeing this sort of crap in the medical literature now for a couple decades, with JAMA being a repeat offender.
    It's basically dishonest, politically-motivated editorializing, masquerading as science.

    (Probably someone will cite the article at some point in support of the concept that "larger" 7.62x39 rounds are the more evil since they're shot from a type of "assault rifle", thereby attempting to add weight to arguments for banning such weapons!)

    Unfortunately, too many physicians, self-impressed with the learning they possess within their own particular fields, mistakenly believe themselves competent to judge and comment about matters of which they know little or nothing.
    Such is hubris.
    "Therefore, since the world has still... Much good, but much less good than ill,
    And while the sun and moon endure, Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
    I'd face it as a wise man would, And train for ill and not for good." -- A.E. Housman

  6. #6
    THE THIRST MUTILATOR Nephrology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    West
    FYI, JAMA puts out articles like this because they are splashy and will attract media attention + countless rebuttal/comments, which increases the number of citations of the article and thus increases the "impact factor" of the journal (an arbitrary, indirect, but highly coveted measure of academic journal "quality").

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Asuncion, Paraguay
    What a crap article...

  8. #8
    Four String Fumbler Joe in PNG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Papua New Guinea; formerly Florida
    Media can't even report on the Caliber Wars without screwing up.

    But, there may be a positive side- because it's the NYT and other godless pinko commies putting out the story, even the most hardened .45 ACP = 'Murrica gun counter commando might gain a new appreciation for the 9mm Europellet.
    "You win 100% of the fights you avoid. If you're not there when it happens, you don't lose." - William Aprill
    "I've owned a guitar for 31 years and that sure hasn't made me a musician, let alone an expert. It's made me a guy who owns a guitar."- BBI

  9. #9

    Caliber With Likelihood of Death From Gunshot Injury

    I never took a statistics class and did poorly in almost every science class I’ve taken. I am not familiar with the proper protocol to be used when trying to do any kind of study like this. I also did not read the entirety of the linked study. With that in mind: I didn’t see it mentioned that the authors controlled for the location of the wounds on victims. Wouldn’t this “study” have been more valid if they compared wounds in the same location on the victim’s body? It doesn’t make sense to me to compare the results without controlling for that. Wounds to the head should be compared against wounds to the head and not against wounds to the limbs. If you compared a substantial amount of GSWs to the upper thoracic cavity and found that larger handgun calibers were more likely to produce fatal wounds than smaller ones, you might have a leg to stand on. If you’re including wounds to limbs, torsos and heads all together, how is the data valid?

    It’s also strange to include 7.62x39 with all these handgun calibers. Wouldn’t it have been more appropriate to compare rifle calibers to each other instead of to handgun calibers?
    Last edited by WobblyPossum; 04-01-2019 at 04:31 PM.
    My posts only represent my personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or official policies of any employer, past or present. Obvious spelling errors are likely the result of an iPhone keyboard.

  10. #10
    The only data point I'm seeing from this "study" is that there appears to have been only one shooting with a rifle in Boston, so much for the much ballyhoo'ed idea that Assault rifle availability makes the blood flow in the streets...

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •