Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26

Thread: Caliber With Likelihood of Death From Gunshot Injury

  1. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Asuncion, Paraguay
    Quote Originally Posted by DanM View Post
    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?
    There are so many flaws in this "study", but as you point out the main glaring issue is "location, location, location".

  2. #12
    After reading the Boston and Chicago ''research'' papers linked in the NYT article, I came away with two things:

    1.) a dull headache and,
    2.) knowing that there is no way that I will get that 15 minutes back

    The authors of those papers seem to have forgotten―or perhaps never learned―that correlation does not imply causation.
    ''Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity.'' ―Albert Einstein

    Full disclosure per the Pistol-Forum CoC: I am the author of Quantitative Ammunition Selection.

  3. #13
    Member TGS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Back in northern Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by Nephrology View Post
    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").
    So, basically clickbait?
    "Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer

  4. #14
    THE THIRST MUTILATOR Nephrology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    West
    Quote Originally Posted by TGS View Post
    So, basically clickbait?
    Yes but we did it first, I guess.

  5. #15
    Site Supporter SeriousStudent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Texas
    My first thought was if you want a caliber associated with likelihood of death, you need a firearm around 155mm, equipped with wheels and a lanyard.

    Everything else is iffy.

  6. #16
    I dip my 22's in the venom of Phyllobates terribilis. I don't see anything in that study about this new and growing trend of using the low recoil of the smaller calibers combined with frog venom to enhance overall effectiveness.

    Down side is you need to wear gloves when you load. And then dispose of the gloves in biohazard bags. Or burn them. Anyhow, its all a balance.

  7. #17
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Seminole Texas
    My comment from the duplicate thread

    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.

  8. #18
    Site Supporter OlongJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    "carbine-infested rural (and suburban) areas"
    Quote Originally Posted by rcbusmc24 View Post
    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...
    Sample size of 1, and we don't know where it hit. Same for 10mm, but sample size of 2.

    Someone ought to point out that the number of people murdered with the assailant's bare hands/feet is significantly greater than all those killed with rifles.

    The other thread (moderators should fold them together soon) discusses "rifle vs. pistol" terminal ballistics, but there's also the accuracy factor if a rifle is used anything like effectively.
    .
    -----------------------------------------
    Not another dime.

  9. #19
    The Nostomaniac 03RN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by spyderco monkey View Post
    .357 master race

  10. #20
    The R in F.A.R.T RevolverRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Gotham Adjacent
    I commented in the other thread. Now that I see the sample sizes here, I'm pretty sure any undergrad in statistics could find enough flaws for this study to get sunk. If this is the quality of work published in JAMA, then JAMA probably isn't worth reading. This study is laughably bad and fundamentally flawed.

    This reminds me of a study I once read in an ecology journal. It was describing an new ecological niche model for ancient human hunting vs. scavenger dynamics in the Americas. Their model "definitively demonstrated" that early natives in America did not hunt large mammals and instead only scavenged large mammals. Because the particular variables they concluded were critical for human existence did not overlap with the variables for large mammal existence. Aside from the fact that there is a metric ton of archeological evidence to refute that point, it turns out the variables they chose to investigate, were only evaluated for an ideal range of occupation as opposed to extreme (in other words they assumed that humans only lived in "Edens" as opposed to everywhere). Once you accounted for the true range of potential and the actual physical evidence their model predicted nothing of merit and instead represented the general pattern of data fed into it. (Which is why their paper ended up in some ecology journal, instead of a good anthropology/archeology journal).

    In short; garbage in, garbage out.

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
  •