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/
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/