Doctors and bullets---The Dumb Continues

[DaleA]

Seems like the medical profession is gathering itself up for a push at stronger gun control. They’re pushing the idea that “gun violence” is a “public health concern” and our law makers should pay attention to what they [the medical profession] has to say about “gun control”.

Toward that end there’s been some, what I would call “misinformation” about guns and ammunition and what some might call “exaggerations” about the effect bullets fired from an “assault weapon” have on human bodies.

Here’s an example from the New York Times by Dr. Leana Wen, an emergency physician and the health commissioner of Baltimore City.

“Early in my medical training, I learned that it is not the bullet that kills you, but the path the bullet takes.”
I thought long and hard about commenting on this statement and then decided to just let it sit there and be a reflection on the person who made it.

Later on in the opinion piece the doctor is talking about bullets fired from an “assault weapon”. I’ve put some of the doctor’s comments in bold.
“This is in contrast to expanding bullets, especially if shot from an assault rifle, which can discharge bullets much faster than a handgun. Once they enter the body, they fragment and explode, pulverizing bones, tearing blood vessels and liquefying organs.”

Well the bullets DON’T explode. As to saying the bullet will liquefy an organ, IMhO this is over the top hyperbole to dramatize the point they are trying to make, which is that “assault weapons” are a “special kind of evil”.

Talking about one specific gunshot wound case the doctor stated:
“The bullet had disintegrated his spleen and torn his aorta. Four ribs had essentially turned to dust.”
Once again I, admittedly NOT a medical professional, call into question whether an expanding .223 bullet would turn four ribs of a human being to dust. Again, I suspect the doctor is doing this to demonize “assault weapons”.

I found it interesting that a correction was made by the New York Times after the opinion piece had been printed because, in their own words, they had “imprecisely described ammunition used in handguns and assault rifles”. The correction stated that “rifles do not shoot only expanding or handguns only non-expanding bullets”.

Well pardon me but if they can’t get that very important part of their story right they are NOT doing their job and deserve to have their credibility questioned.

If you want to read the whole NY Times article you can find it here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/15/opinion/virginia-baseball-shooting-gun-shot-wounds.html?_r=1

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another piece was an article in ‘The Trace’ about nasty things a bullet from an “assault weapon” can do. This article referenced the above opinion piece from the NY Times but provided the reader with additional information about ammunition.

“Assault rifles don’t shoot the largest bullets on the market. In fact, the .223 projectile, a common round for the AR-15, is not much larger than many .22 rounds like the Hornet, typically used for youth shooting sports, target shooting, and hunting varmints. The .223 weighs in at 55 grains, while the .22 is usually 45 grains or smaller.”

It took me a minute or two but from the above text I suspect ‘The Trace’ doesn’t know the difference between a .22 Hornet and a .22 long rifle round. While the .22 Hornet certain can be used and is used for those purposes the word ‘typically’, once again IMhO, would indicate that they mean the .22 long rifle round since I suspect several times more .22LR rounds than .22 Hornet rounds are sold per year. And once again if they can’t be troubled to get stuff like this right I don’t think their opinion on gun control should be given much weight.

If you want to read the whole article from “The Trace” you can find it here: And you might just find a couple other examples that could lead one to believe ‘The Trace’ doesn’t really know what they’re talking about.
https://www.thetrace.org/2017/06/physics-deadly-bullets-assault-rifles/

 

[buck460XVR]

“Early in my medical training, I learned that it is not the bullet that kills you, but the path the bullet takes.”
I thought long and hard about commenting on this statement and then decided to just let it sit there and be a reflection on the person who made it.

Seems like a logical statement. Similar to the statement, "it ain't the fall that kills you, but the contact with the ground".

Doctors, especially those that work in trauma, see first hand what many of us never see.....the destruction caused by firearms on the human body and it's components. Go to a hunting forum and you hear folks talking about "turning the lungs into mush" all the time. I myself butcher my own deer and am constantly amazed at the damage a bullet can make when it hits bone or an organ. It is not a pretty sight. I can understand why doctors are horrified by bullet construction and the damage they cause.....but still, it's that damage that bullets are designed for, especially hunting and SD/HD type bullets. There was a reason countries decided, as ugly as war is, to only use FMJ, non-expanding type bullets for warfare. I think for the most part, doctors, especially trauma doctors are doing their job and they do it well. They just don't like what they see.

 

[lamarw]

Then you see the advertisements by ammunition and bullet manufactures about their products. One that comes to mind is along the lines of grenade bullet.

Yes, we who carry for defensive purposes want the best performance from our equipment. Hunters want the most humane thus quick death from their ammunition.

On the other hand, those opposed to firearms are going to use the same language when innocent people are killed by bad people.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Later on in the opinion piece the doctor is talking about bullets fired from an “assault weapon”. I’ve put some of the doctor’s comments in bold.
“This is in contrast to expanding bullets, especially if shot from an assault rifle, which can discharge bullets much faster than a handgun. Once they enter the body, they fragment and explode, pulverizing bones, tearing blood vessels and liquefying organs.”

Well the bullets DON’T explode. As to saying the bullet will liquefy an organ, IMhO this is over the top hyperbole to dramatize the point they are trying to make, which is that “assault weapons” are a “special kind of evil”.

Do more research on the military 5.56x45 round. It doesn't "explode" in the sense of having an internal charge that blows it up like a mini hand grenade, but it does something else.

The most commonly available round for the AR-15 is the 55-grain M193, which is what we carried as standard issue when I was in Vietnam. The bullet has a cannelure (that ring of small notches or indentations that runs like a belt around the circumference about midway along the length of the bullet). The current 62-grain M855 ammo also has a cannelure.

Both bullets are comparatively long, and tail-heavy. Upon impact with a target, they tumble -- the nose slows down and the tail flips off-axis and overtakes the nose. If the bullet is still traveling fast enough (and I don't remember the critical velocity but you can probably find it), the speed of the resultant tumbling generates enough force that the bullet jacket breaks at the cannelure and the bullet fragments. It was already tumbling -- ever see the ragged hole made when even a handgun bullet upsets and "keyholes"? Now factor in keyholing plus the bullet fragmenting. It creates a rather nasty wound channel.

One of the arguments against the shorter M4 carbine in military use is simply that the loss of muzzle velocity results in the tumbling effect and resultant fragmenting not taking place except at comparatively short range. Without the tumbling and fragmentation, the AR-15 is basically just punching .22" holes. It's that tumbling and fragmenting that makes it an effective projectile.

But does it "liquify" internal organs? That's an argument I have never encountered before, and I'm inclined to think it's just that doctor's anti-gun bias kicking in.

[Edit to add] https://www.ar15.com/ammo-oracle/

 

[Double Naught Spy]

“Early in my medical training, I learned that it is not the bullet that kills you, but the path the bullet takes.”
I thought long and hard about commenting on this statement and then decided to just let it sit there and be a reflection on the person who made it.

He made a true statement whether you like it or not. Lots of people are walking around with bullets inside of them. The bullets are not killing them.

"Once they enter the body, they fragment and explode, pulverizing bones, tearing blood vessels and liquefying organs.”

Well the bullets DON’T explode. As to saying the bullet will liquefy an organ, IMhO this is over the top hyperbole to dramatize the point they are trying to make,..."

buck460vxr is right. I take it that you don't hunt. I necropsy at bunch of my kills. When you open up a chest cavity and find chunky soup where the lungs (and sometimes heart) were, you get the impression is has all turned to liquid because cohesion between cells has often broken down lung tissue no longer being recognizable as lung tissue. Basically, the structures are broken down so far that you don't have lungs anymore that are identifiable and what is left is in a 'soup' of blood that isn't just blood.

I understand that bullets (typical ammo) does not explode in the actual chemical definition of exploding. Then again, the exploded diagram of my rifle does not fit that definition either. Many bullets do explode is the more common definitional sense that they come apart violently into many fragments. Look it up. His use of the term is not wrong.

Talking about one specific gunshot wound case the doctor stated:
“The bullet had disintegrated his spleen and torn his aorta. Four ribs had essentially turned to dust.”
Once again I, admittedly NOT a medical professional, call into question whether an expanding .223 bullet would turn four ribs of a human being to dust. Again, I suspect the doctor is doing this to demonize “assault weapons”.

I have had this same thing happen countless times where I am unable to recover sections of ribs that have been shattered to the extent that they simply are not discernible anywhere in the surrounding tissue. You could say they turned to dust. You could say they were pulverized and mixed into surrounding body tissues as a mush. Sometimes you can find bone splinters in the mush. Sometimes, they just seem to have been removed from the body because you don't find those sections. They just seem "gone."

Would you have been happy if the doctor provided a highly complex technical explanation for what is happening to these various body tissues? The problem with highly technical explanations is that so many people will not be able to understand them and they can be long and involved. The reporter likely would not have gotten all the technical jargon correct, LOL.

Bullets, passing through the body, do not kill non-violently. That is what makes them good for what we do with them. That the doctor is using such insight is apparently what you see wrong with the information, but the doctor isn't all together wrong. In fact, he is quite right and I would argue that he has sugar-coated (not in the technical confectioner sense, but in the simile sense) some of his descriptions.

Yeah, the doctor had an agenda, no doubt about it, but many of your complaints are without merit.

 

[DaleA]

I see many doctors sensationalizing gunshot wounds to push their agenda for tighter gun control.

In my state of Minnesota the Minnesota Medical Association has called for:

-a renewal and strengthening of the assault weapons ban, including banning high-capacity magazines.

I see the doctors implying that these horrific gunshot wounds are peculiar to a specific bullet fired from a specific gun, and that of course is an “assault weapon”.

Their writings show they do not understand a gun can fire different kinds of bullets and that a bullet can be fired from different kinds of guns. Since they do not understand this I will not give their opinions on gun control much weight.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Okay, so they have shown some ignorance (though not in the actual wounds), and you have shown some ignorance as well. Where does that leave us?

Is this where you proclaim to boycott all doctors??

 

[DaleA]

Where does this leave us?

Good point.

With the knowledge some folk in the medical community are sensationalizing gunshot wounds to demonize "assault weapons" and renewing a push for an "assault weapons" ban and other, tighter, gun control laws.

I dislike their tactics because bullets from other guns, not "assault weapons", can, as we all here know, cause similar wounds.

And nobody said anything about a boycott.

 

[UncleEd]

Double Naught Spy,

Thank you for your description and analysis.



In the early 1960s:

From what I remember of a couple officers
who viewed testing of the AR-15 and its puny
.223 round, they were highly impressed by
how various targets were "shredded," something
completely different than the experience with
armor piercing .30s. The whole point was that
that "gun by Mattel" was a "shredder."

 

[Nathan]

Doctors in trauma care get into a weird situation where they see many people who are shot with little to no idea of the situation surrounding the shooting.

Add to that, that they have to get their game face on to save the shot person like that were the greatest person alive. ......but, how many times are they saving the thug who was shot up by the good guy, the less bad guy or the equally bad guy on the other end of the fight. How often did they really earn the death doc do good is saving them from?

Then what they see from a good shot is the after effect of hydrolic shock due to the work the bullet does on the internals. Bullets don't explode. They expand and that expansion and slowing of the bullet increases hydrolic pressure which causes organs to over pressure and rupture. This occurs with a good shot and good ammo. Are thugs buying good ammo? Or is the thugs the receiver of more of these shots? Do thugs shoot accurately or is it when the good guy shoots that shots are on target?

Are doctors saying that bad guys shouldn't be caught or shot? Hmmm?

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Hydrolic?

Anyway, here's my take. What sense does it make to say that doctors are sensationalizing the gun shot wounds. As pointed out by DNS, the effects can be as described as reported.

Second, you have:

17 dead at Parkland
24 dead at Sutherland
58 killed at Las Vegas
49 at Orlando
25 at Sandy Hook

Saying that some doctor mistakenly exaggerated the wounds? So what? Would it make a difference in the debate if all had died with a neat little hole?

I'm sorry, this is the typical, let's make an excuse and try to say the gun isn't that bad a weapon? That argument goes nowhere fast.

It shows no understanding of messaging, opinion formation and the purpose of the Second Amend.

Folks chortle if someone says clip, if they use the term assault rifle incorrectly because the gun isn't full auto, or the caliber is just a 22. It would have been worse if the killer used a 338 Lapua. It's just a tool, like a hammer. You can hit someone in the head with a hammer. It's for sport! It's good for shooting birdies and bambies and squirrels. It's a modern sporting rifle.

Point out that other guns are just as dangerous? BAN them also!

So what? None of the excuse defense is effective or matters. The purpose of the 2nd Amend. is for efficacious instruments of lethal force to be used as weapons for self-defense and defend against tyranny.

It is as useful as Wayne LaP. and the NRA arguing that the Godless left wants to take your guns so that an old toot professor and kindergarten teacher can make you kid into a SOCIALIST! So we need weapons of mass destruction (Sen. Manchin's description of ARs) to prevent this.

Think that is going to change the mind of anyone listening to that messaging? It might raise money from the choir - oh, insight!

Rant over.

 

[zukiphile]

It is as useful as Wayne LaP. and the NRA arguing that the Godless left wants to take your guns so that an old toot professor and kindergarten teacher can make you kid into a SOCIALIST!

You've been writing this frequently. Did someone notable seriously argue it?

 

[wwhitman]

Hydrolic?

Anyway, here's my take. What sense does it make to say that doctors are sensationalizing the gun shot wounds. As pointed out by DNS, the effects can be as described as reported.

Second, you have:

17 dead at Parkland
24 dead at Sutherland
58 killed at Las Vegas
49 at Orlando
25 at Sandy Hook

Saying that some doctor mistakenly exaggerated the wounds? So what? Would it make a difference in the debate if all had died with a neat little hole?

I'm sorry, this is the typical, let's make an excuse and try to say the gun isn't that bad a weapon? That argument goes nowhere fast.

It shows no understanding of messaging, opinion formation and the purpose of the Second Amend.

Folks chortle if someone says clip, if they use the term assault rifle incorrectly because the gun isn't full auto, or the caliber is just a 22. It would have been worse if the killer used a 338 Lapua. It's just a tool, like a hammer. You can hit someone in the head with a hammer. It's for sport! It's good for shooting birdies and bambies and squirrels. It's a modern sporting rifle.

Point out that other guns are just as dangerous? BAN them also!

So what? None of the excuse defense is effective or matters. The purpose of the 2nd Amend. is for efficacious instruments of lethal force to be used as weapons for self-defense and defend against tyranny.

It is as useful as Wayne LaP. and the NRA arguing that the Godless left wants to take your guns so that an old toot professor and kindergarten teacher can make you kid into a SOCIALIST! So we need weapons of mass destruction (Sen. Manchin's description of ARs) to prevent this.

Think that is going to change the mind of anyone listening to that messaging? It might raise money from the choir - oh, insight!

Rant over.

No ones mind will be changed, that's why I don't care anymore. When they say clip, I don't care, I know what they mean. When they say 800 rounds per minute, I'll usually ask for a link to where I can purchase an 800 round "clip". But no, I don't care. What I do care about is my unwavering stance that I won't live through any disarmament attempt on me. They can fire the second "shot heard around the world" anytime they want. I won't give up any guns.

And I don't have any assault rifles. All of mine are full semi automatic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xVQXCL2JGA&t=3s

 

[dajowi]

Like an explosive lens on a plutonium bomb this issue is only one of many focusing on one aspect of firearms. Singularly not much damage overall. But together all the focus points emit enough energy and then an implosion ensues.
I'm not so sure than criticality isn't achievable.

 

[SonOfScubaDiver]

Hydrolic?

Anyway, here's my take. What sense does it make to say that doctors are sensationalizing the gun shot wounds. As pointed out by DNS, the effects can be as described as reported.

Second, you have:

17 dead at Parkland
24 dead at Sutherland
58 killed at Las Vegas
49 at Orlando
25 at Sandy Hook

Saying that some doctor mistakenly exaggerated the wounds? So what? Would it make a difference in the debate if all had died with a neat little hole?

I'm sorry, this is the typical, let's make an excuse and try to say the gun isn't that bad a weapon? That argument goes nowhere fast.

It shows no understanding of messaging, opinion formation and the purpose of the Second Amend.

Folks chortle if someone says clip, if they use the term assault rifle incorrectly because the gun isn't full auto, or the caliber is just a 22. It would have been worse if the killer used a 338 Lapua. It's just a tool, like a hammer. You can hit someone in the head with a hammer. It's for sport! It's good for shooting birdies and bambies and squirrels. It's a modern sporting rifle.

Point out that other guns are just as dangerous? BAN them also!

So what? None of the excuse defense is effective or matters. The purpose of the 2nd Amend. is for efficacious instruments of lethal force to be used as weapons for self-defense and defend against tyranny.

It is as useful as Wayne LaP. and the NRA arguing that the Godless left wants to take your guns so that an old toot professor and kindergarten teacher can make you kid into a SOCIALIST! So we need weapons of mass destruction (Sen. Manchin's description of ARs) to prevent this.

Think that is going to change the mind of anyone listening to that messaging? It might raise money from the choir - oh, insight!

Rant over.

Tonight, over on FB, the gun range I go to reposted one of those memes FB is known for. You know, some jab at "anti-gunners" that's little more than a half truth that serves no real purpose other than to try to make the other side look bad. I told them, the fine people that run the range, that I sincerely hope they find a better way to promote their business and their pro 2A stance than resorting to posting such memes. Then I came here and read your "rant".

You're right, Glenn. The messaging is all wrong, and that's a big part of why the pro gun crowd is losing the argument over gun rights. Some of the things I've read coming from our side towards these kids protesting gun violence disgusts me. The "socialist" nonsense spewing forth from the NRA does nothing to further the cause. It's almost as if this whole debate has devolved into nothing more than a game of one-up. As long as we can come up with a better jab at the other side, then we're winning the argument. Let's see how much we can nitpick to make them look bad. Yeah, that's how we'll win! Tell them how stupid they are!

I'm so sick of the whole damn thing! I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I do know this much--we lack the right kind of leadership. We need people who can speak for us who do not come across as gun crazed lunatics. We need people who know how to put together a respectful cogent argument in favor of gun rights, not the LaPierres of the gun world who go off on conspiratorial rants about evil socialists.

Maybe it's too much to ask for. I don't know. I do, however, know that your post hit the nail on then head for me concerning my frustration with how we are going about this debate in our nation. The messaging is all wrong!

 

[zukiphile]

We need people who know how to put together a respectful cogent argument in favor of gun rights, not the LaPierres of the gun world who go off on conspiratorial rants about evil socialists.

Why is the gun prohibition movement positioned left of center in the american context?


We have many people who construct measured, coherent and calm arguments in defense of the right. Ted Cruz did that in the Senate. Alan Gura did it in court. Kopel and Lott do it in articles. That you or I may prefer the arguments and demeanor of someone else doesn't itself mean that LaPierre has a message that's "all wrong". He may be well suited for his purpose.

 

[Tom Servo]

Why is the gun prohibition movement positioned left of center in the american context?

Because it's part of the idea that individual initiative and responsibility are traded for dependence on the state, which is always competent and never corrupt. Allowing the common people to have guns just messes up that whole arrangement.

We have many people who construct measured, coherent and calm arguments in defense of the right.

Yep, and we also have blithering idiots who spout all sorts of counterproductive nonsense. The NRA could have the most sober, competent, and articulate commentators around, but the media is going to ignore them in favor of Joe Bob on Facebook who just posted something inflammatory.

It may seem we're losing the debate in the court of public opinion, but that places far too much trust in social media. Facebook and Twitter aren't accurate gauges of public opinion. Remember, social media predicted a very different result to the 2016 election with near unanimity. It allows a vocal minority to seem like (and feel like) a greater percentage of the population than they actually are.

Joe Sixpack owns guns. He votes. He works all day, and he's got a family to raise. He doesn't have time for social media, and on the rare occasions he catches CNN yammering about gun control, he changes the channel. He, not @SuzieSnowflakeMoonChild, is the majority.

The medical community tried to steer the conversation in the early 1990's in the same way they're doing now. They pretty much preached to the choir while having little effect on public policy. While things like this are certainly annoying (and worth addressing when they come up), I'm not too worried. This is a battle to be won in the legislatures and courts, not medical journals and afternoon talk shows.

 

[zukiphile]

We have many people who construct measured, coherent and calm arguments in defense of the right.

Yep, and we also have blithering idiots who spout all sorts of counterproductive nonsense.

So the dominance of broad stroke arguments isn't for lack of people who make more subtle and precise ones.

I'm sympathetic to the sentiment, but the facts can be read more neutrally: popular messages will not be littered with nuance and restraint. WWI german soldiers weren't actually woman stealing gorillas or brutes climbing in a person's window, but the message that propaganda sent was consumable by simple people. I like a limited and precise analysis modestly stated, but that is abnormal. It might not be the NRA's mission to state a case so precise and hushed that only a lawyer could love it.

The NRA could have the most sober, competent, and articulate commentators around, but the media is going to ignore them in favor of Joe Bob on Facebook who just posted something inflammatory.

Indeed. In a system in which the most sober, articulate and competent analyst gets the same vote as Joe Bob on FB, and Joe Bob has an advantage in numbers, maybe it isn't the best idea go out of one's way to call Joe Bob a dope.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

He may be well suited for his purpose.

That's the center of the argument.

When folks say that they don't care anymore and are sick of arguing and the rhetoric turns out the choir, that's the problem.

I don't think gun rights can be defended just by riling up the choir with arguments that turn off anyone who was trying to discern a reasonable take on the truth.

Saying you don't want to convince folks or move opinion is having adopted a Maginot line defense and it will crumble over time.

It's attractive to buy into group polarization and live in your own opinion bubble. I disagree with that and maybe am too optimistic that better messaging might work.

We see that progun states can move against gun rights. Expect more of that.

 

[zukiphile]

That's the center of the argument.

When folks say that they don't care anymore and are sick of arguing and the rhetoric turns out the choir, that's the problem.

I've no certainty that buttressing existing support with rhetoric is "the problem". Without re-enforcement, enthusiasm for defense of any civil right is likely to suffer in the political process. Ignoring that function isn't a reasonable plan.

I don't think gun rights can be defended just by riling up the choir with arguments that turn off anyone who was trying to discern a reasonable take on the truth.

Saying you don't want to convince folks or move opinion is having adopted a Maginot line defense and it will crumble over time.

Emphasis added. Who proposes that?

Persuasion seems to involve approaching someone on a wavelength and with a demeanor to which they are receptive. There will be a wide range of people receptive to many different approaches, both for re-enforcement and conversion. That a message doesn't resonate with one group doesn't mean that it missed the sweet spot with another.

It is as useful as Wayne LaP. and the NRA arguing that the Godless left wants to take your guns so that an old toot professor and kindergarten teacher can make you kid into a SOCIALIST!

Emphasis added.

You've been writing this frequently. Did someone notable seriously argue it?