Hey all,
I came across this recent article by the Journal of the American Medical Association and it supposedly finds that shootings involving what it considers medium (380 ACP, 38 special, 9mm) and large calibers (357 mag, 40, 44 mag, 45, and includes 7.62 x 39 -that's odd) have a higher odds ratio of being lethal. (supposedly 2.2 and 4.5 times more likely to die) It's a recent article just put out last month.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2688536
I haven't read the entire thing in detail, and even my paraphrase may be inaccurate. Reading research articles has always been laborious for me so I just don't feel like it right now. Anyone care to have a go?
From my brief skimming, it seems like the conclusion is to propose the idea that limiting access to larger calibers would reduce fatalities from shootings.
My thoughts so far that I have (which may be answered on a detail read-through) are:
- I saw "Fackler" as a reference. From reading other sources, I had the impression that it was a good idea to take his findings with a grain of salt. Was he involved in the attempt to establish "one shot stop" statistics years ago?
- I wonder if the methodology accounted for the number of shots fired versus hits (which may be affected by caliber), the range of the encounter, and how it affects lethality. I noticed a mention of "accuracy" but I doubt every incident used in data would have been painstakingly broken down
- These were all cases that the Boston PD found to have "victims" that were shot as a result of criminal behavior. Could there be some fishiness in the selection of cases that the reader doesn't have access to? I know in some circumstances, it's hard to really say who the victim is...
- I noticed some non-lethal shootings were mixed in...."stratified". Was this a control group of some type? Were the non-lethal cases documented in terms of their caliber too? I would think that data would be very important for context. For example if all criminals in the country switched to 357 sig, you would think that 357 sig was all the sudden very lethal just because there is a large number and proportion of cases involved. But if you took into account the number of lethal and non-lethal 357 sig encounters and compared it to the mortality rate of cases of all the other calibers, then you'd have a better picture if all else were equal (which it never is really)
-
Please keep comments civil, and please don't bash the medical or scientific community even when they are sorely mistaken.
I came across this recent article by the Journal of the American Medical Association and it supposedly finds that shootings involving what it considers medium (380 ACP, 38 special, 9mm) and large calibers (357 mag, 40, 44 mag, 45, and includes 7.62 x 39 -that's odd) have a higher odds ratio of being lethal. (supposedly 2.2 and 4.5 times more likely to die) It's a recent article just put out last month.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2688536
I haven't read the entire thing in detail, and even my paraphrase may be inaccurate. Reading research articles has always been laborious for me so I just don't feel like it right now. Anyone care to have a go?
From my brief skimming, it seems like the conclusion is to propose the idea that limiting access to larger calibers would reduce fatalities from shootings.
My thoughts so far that I have (which may be answered on a detail read-through) are:
- I saw "Fackler" as a reference. From reading other sources, I had the impression that it was a good idea to take his findings with a grain of salt. Was he involved in the attempt to establish "one shot stop" statistics years ago?
- I wonder if the methodology accounted for the number of shots fired versus hits (which may be affected by caliber), the range of the encounter, and how it affects lethality. I noticed a mention of "accuracy" but I doubt every incident used in data would have been painstakingly broken down
- These were all cases that the Boston PD found to have "victims" that were shot as a result of criminal behavior. Could there be some fishiness in the selection of cases that the reader doesn't have access to? I know in some circumstances, it's hard to really say who the victim is...
- I noticed some non-lethal shootings were mixed in...."stratified". Was this a control group of some type? Were the non-lethal cases documented in terms of their caliber too? I would think that data would be very important for context. For example if all criminals in the country switched to 357 sig, you would think that 357 sig was all the sudden very lethal just because there is a large number and proportion of cases involved. But if you took into account the number of lethal and non-lethal 357 sig encounters and compared it to the mortality rate of cases of all the other calibers, then you'd have a better picture if all else were equal (which it never is really)
-
- Anyone care to poke a hole in the article on a technical level, critiquing the methods? I don't quite think my statistics is up to the challenge and could use some backup. If reading research articles is relatively easy for any of you, please do so and share with your peer-reviewed friends So far my arguments are based on principle and suspicions, not using the data in the article. Anyone care to dive down this rabbit hole?Whether the victim of a serious assault lives or dies is to a large extent a matter of chance, rather than a question of the assailant’s intent. The probability of death is connected to the intrinsic power and lethality of the weapon. T
Please keep comments civil, and please don't bash the medical or scientific community even when they are sorely mistaken.
Last edited: