JAMA article on caliber lethality

[PzGren]

Meaning The findings are foundational to the debate over whether deadly weapons should be better regulated and provide evidence against the common view that whether the victim lives or dies is determined largely by the assailant’s intent and not the type of weapon.

JAMA used to be a very respected medical journal. Each article was based on science and not speculation and had to be approved by at least one peer in the medical society and it had been considered an honour and academical achievement to publish an article in it. Obama had broken that fine tradition when he was given the opportunity to publish a non-scientific article tooting his own horn about the success of Obamacare.
The degradation is obviously a process in a downwards spiral, like all negative processes it gains momentum and speed by itself.

 

[44 AMP]

44Amp: I wonder, perhaps this new-ish trend of attempting to do medical research on the subject of firearms is encouraged by (not just politics of course) relatively recent things considered successes like seat belts and smoking.

Its not new, or new-ish. Quite a few years ago the CDC decided it would study the "disease of gun violence". And while their studies varied, their conclusions were uniformly constant, promoting gun control. This constant uniformity of conclusion lead to some investigation, and ultimately to Congress passing laws that prohibited the CDC from using govt money to promote gun control.

Note the language, "prohibited from using govt funds to promote gun control".

This is NOT what the press reports. The popular press will tell you that the govt prohibits the CDC from studying gun violence. This is not true. The CDC can study gun violence all they want, but since they can't spend govt. money to support gun control, they choose not to do the studies.

I used to respect the CDC and the medical profession in general. I no longer do very much, and not at all when they venture out of medical matters.

Ever wonder if JAMA (or anybody else) would publish a study by doctors if their conclusions were that larger calibers are more lethal, and therefore we should restrict the availability of SMALLER calibers?

Think of the benefits to society by forcing us to use better killing weapons! We would reduce, permanently, the criminal population, thereby easing the burden on our police, courts and penal system! And as well, our taxpayers, will benefit from those agencies being able to better utilize available resources.
(yes, this is intentional sarcasm)

 

[rc]

I thought the 25acp, 32S&W,Long and ACP were considered more lethal as "Saturday night Specials?

 

[Dufus]

When in college, I had a professor that taught us that you can prove anything with statistics. This is another prime example.

 

[rc]

When are they going to study the effect of early release of criminals on the amount of gun violence in a community?

 

[PzGren]

In order for their statistics to be scientifically relevant, the parameters would need to include more ballistic factors. Leaving out the velocity and weight, material and shape of the projectile is ignoring too many ballistic factors that have too large an influence on lethality and wounds ballistics to consider this research scientific.

This looks more like a highschool project of rather untalented and unmotivated kids than of what I would expect from medical doctors.

 

[TXAZ]

PzGren, you're right on.

In the case of Grainger vs. FN, note the 5.7 "wound" in the solid circle vs. the 2 BMG "wounds" in dashed circles. The 5.7 tumbled and made a mess while the .50 BMG rounds were still longitudinally stable at the exit. (the dashed square is a 9mm solid round)
The point is there's significantly more involved in 'lethality' than the simplistic views of JAMA.

JAMA might be more objective and better serve the public by sticking to articles such as "How to read a rectal thermometer".

 

[CDW4ME]

The authors of that article might have an aneurysm if they saw expanded 45 HST
9mm on dimes top, 45 on quarters bottom

 

[jetinteriorguy]

The most interesting aspect of the article as stated is that the majority of the cases studied were either gang violence or drug related. So they think that all law abiding citizens should be armed with less lethal weapons because it might have some kind of benefit on saving criminals lives. Some real logical thinking going on there. I switched doctors a few years ago and when filling out he usual paperwork they asked if I owned any guns, and how many. I wrote down none of your da** business. I never heard a word about that again.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I switched doctors a few years ago and when filling out he usual paperwork they asked if I owned any guns, and how many. I wrote down none of your da** business. I never heard a word about that again.

The problem there is that medical records today are electronic. You wrote down NOYB, but you have no idea how that got entered into your electronic record. It could well have been interpreted by the data drone as a "Yes."

We're not under oath when filling out a form in a doctor's office, so I see no reason not to simply answer in the negative.

 

[PzGren]

Some hospitals are requiring doctors to ask that question, they are also very intrusive into doctors lives when it comes to smoking. My oldest son is a doctor in emergency medicine he cannot smoke hookah anymore but has a small collection of guns that he enjoys. He has a carry permit and is only aware of one other doctor in his hospital ( from Texas ) who has a carry permit.

I guess that once he has his student loans paid off, he will expand his small collection, which he mostly got from me and had the AR built for him by his "little" brother. His two cousins who are also doctors sadly do not own any guns personally but their husbands do.

 

[Wyosmith]

"When in college, I had a professor that taught us that you can prove anything with statistics."

Yeah that can be true at times "Figures don't lie, but liars can sure figure".

I can't say is the motives of the report by the JAMA is pure in it's motives or not, but frankly I don't care much either.

See,----- the emperor is actually naked.

As a hunter of over 50 years of experience and a military man with nearly 18 years experience combined, USMC, DOD and Consultant to military unites of allied nations (all of which was involved with "trigger pulling and trigger pullers") I can tell you what is important about killing and stopping, and it's actually quite simple.

Here it is in a nut shell.

Guns don't kill
Cartridges don't kill.
Even bullets don't kill.

Bullet HOLES kill!

So when we look at bullet holes in people and in game it always comes down to only 2 factors that can be linked to the bullet and/or cartridge.

#1 is penetration.
#2 is cavitation.

That's it. That's all there is. There is nothing else.

So if we have enough power to drive a bullet clear through a target we have 100% penetration. It just can't get any better then that.

Next we have the study of cavitation. That simply means how big around the hole is, and how straight it is, both of which equate to square centimeters or square inches of displaced tissue and bone.

There are many many many studies and a mountain of papers all about the effects of shooting game and people on a case by case basis and also about generalities. Some of those studies are agenda driven and others are simply a compilation of facts. Some are trying very hard to "prove" that bullets "A" is better then bullet "B" and some are just showing what killed or stopped the animal or man the fastest.

Let's look at some facts. Something that we can all see without any study at all. Things that have no arguments.

Fact #1. 100% of all animals and all people that have had their head separated from their neck have stopped immediately.
Why?
Because the brain is destroyed or separated from the body, and it's the body that does all the moving, but the body stops when the brain is removed.

Fact #2 A hole clear through the torso of any man or animal that is 12" in diameter (size of a 1 foot irrigation pipe) would never be less effective than the same wound trajectory that was only 1" in diameter.
Why?
Because a 12" hole would drop the blood pressure to zero a LOT faster then a 1" hole, and a 12" hole would break the spine nearly every time whereas a 1" hole may or may not.

Sound silly?
Well it's not so silly as you may think.

See.... if we are looking for the ultimate in "stopping power" we have to look first at those things that are truly 100%.

No one ever has continued to attack after their body was blown into 50 pieces of roughly equal size. Right?

No one has ever continued to attack after their head was cut or blown off. Right?

So when looking at bullet holes we have to acknowledge that we cannot get as effective as an RPG or a broad sword. What we want to do is get as close as we can.

The only thing that does more damage for a bullet then giving 100% penetration is to give more and more cavitation along with that 100% penetration.

So if we through out the XYZ and the ABC "reports" and simply look at the HOLES left by various bullets at various ranges we see the truth of the matter.

What is vital, far more so then all the ABC and XYZ reports can cover is what was hit inside the body of the enemy or animal.

The skill (or luck) of the shooter is really far more important then all the rest of the tripe. We can build skills but we can't make good luck. This is why good hits with a 9MM do so much better then bad hits with a 44 mag. It's the reason good hits with a 243 kill deer so much better then bad hits with a 458.

But the part that we can have a lasting and positive effect on is our skill level and if a skilled marksman shoots a good bullet that exists all the time, and always hits the place he wants to hit, you see close to 100% instant stops. And that can be with a small caliber pistol and it can be with a 375H&H rifle.


So to see the truth and know what really works, you shoot the gun you can actually use (factoring in the ability to have it at the time you need it as well as the ballistic power, and trying to balance the 2 as best you can)

Agendas are to be ignored.

Any gun will do if you can do the job with that gun.

Smaller calibers and less power is often easier to shoot well and easier to carry, so a gun you have is ALWAYS better than any gun you don't have when you need a gun.

But for "stopping power, it's only 3 things.

Penetration. 100% is best.

Cavitation. Larger is better then smaller.

Marksmanship. Good hits are better than bad ones even if they may lack some degree of #1 and #2 above.

#3 is the most important.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

"When in college, I had a professor that taught us that you can prove anything with statistics."

Yeah that can be true at times "Figures don't lie, but liars can sure figure".

And, as Samuel Clements (Mark Twain) once said (or wrote): "There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics."

 

[1-DAB]

and yet, the FBI just went back to 9mm....guess they want you to suffer, but not die, so they can convict you and then let you die in prison.

i'm very confused.

 

[DaleA]

The authors had 25 references listed at the end of their article but "Cartridges of the World" was not one of them...pity...could brought a whole 'nother dimension to their discussion.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

and yet, the FBI just went back to 9mm....guess they want you to suffer, but not die, so they can convict you and then let you die in prison.

i'm very confused.

This is more of a marksmanship issue and the fact that bullets today expand better than they did 30 years ago, penetrate better, the notion being that agents can put rounds on target better with a 9mm, more rounds on target, and that the rounds are going to do significant damage.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...afd1d3eb896_story.html?utm_term=.f7b61386789b

Of course, not all of this is said in the article, but goes with the lighter recoiling 9mm.

 

[2damnold4this]

Point #1)
The number of shots fired is not relevant. The number of HITS could be.

That depends on what you are trying to measure. The number of shots fired could certainly be important if we are trying to determine the "intent" of the attacker which was important to the study.

 

[44 AMP]

The number of shots fired could certainly be important if we are trying to determine the "intent" of the attacker which was important to the study.

I don't see how you can figure that. And, even if you could, what does that matter, especially if your "study" is about the lethality of various calibers???

Does wanting to kill someone make a round more deadly? Shooting someone, or shooting at them, is not a benign act. Necessary sometimes, but its NEVER done with benign intent.

Seems pretty clear to me, when people get shot by other people, other than actual accidents, the intent was to shoot them. if you are going to discuss the lethal effectiveness of various rounds, what possible connection can the shooters intent be to that??

Like wise, all misses, and non-lethal hits. There is a difference between the capability of the round, and a shooter's ability to use it efficiently. Two very different subjects.

 

[2damnold4this]

Sounds like you agree with the premise of the study. From the study:

While speculative, recent studies suggest a continuing trend toward greater wound severity associated with the greater power of firearms in common use.9,10 (Improved trauma care may have prevented an increase in the national case-fatality rate.11) It is widely accepted among medical and public health professionals that the likelihood of death in an assault increases with the power of the gun.2,3,6-8,12 But that belief is routinely challenged by advocates and some social scientists in the national debate over gun regulation.13,14

The opposing view holds that it is not the type of weapon that determines whether the victim lives or dies, but rather the intent of the assailant.13-17 This notion is captured by the old slogan “guns don’t kill people; people kill people.” In this view, an assailant who is determined to kill will do what is necessary to accomplish that purpose, regardless of weapon type.11-19 As a logical corollary, the 1 in 6 who die from a gun assault differ from those who survive with respect to the shooter’s intent and determination. In effect, the criminal law and the courts conform with this view by treating a fatal shooting as a more serious crime than a nonfatal shooting. The outcome of the shooting (life or death) is viewed as a reliable guide to the intent—the determination to kill—of the shooter. The most severe punishments, including the death penalty and life in prison, are reserved for cases in which the victim dies.

In 1972, Franklin Zimring published a seminal article that challenged the belief that the outcome of the shooting was primarily determined by the intent of the shooter.20 He found that nonfatal and fatal shootings were very similar with respect to the circumstances and observed characteristics of the victims and assailants. In effect, the survivors were “lucky” in that in many cases a small change in the path of the bullet would have resulted in the victim’s death. A notable pattern in Zimring’s data was that the likelihood of death was correlated with the caliber of the assailant’s firearm. He concluded that the outcome of gun assaults had a large random element, and that the power of the firearm was one systematic factor influencing the likelihood that an individual with a gunshot injury would survive, a phenomenon he dubbed “instrumentality.” The contrary view is that the caliber of the gun is simply a reflection of the assailant’s determination to kill, with little independent influence on the probability of death.11-19

The importance of instrumentality in the gun debate is illustrated by findings from a recent survey of experts by the RAND Corporation. Respondents were asked to estimate the effect on the overall homicide rate of a policy that was successful in reducing the firearms homicide rate. Those respondents who on other items had favored permissive firearms regulation tended to believe that assailants would substitute other weapons with nearly the same effect, unlike those respondents who favored more restrictive regulations: “Median responses by the permissive class suggested that 90 percent of prevented firearm homicides would end as a homicide by another means, and median responses by the restrictive class estimated that just 20 percent would. The middle 50 percent of responses from each group (ie, between the 25th and 75th percentile) did not overlap.”21

The relative importance of chance vs intention in determining the likelihood of death cannot be measured because there is no direct measure of intention in available data. But if Zimring is correct that the caliber of the gun in an assault is not correlated with systematic factors such as the skill and determination of the assailant, then the pattern of case-fatality rates across calibers provides a clean test of instrumentality, akin to an experiment.

This study follows the original Zimring analysis but with better data and more sophisticated statistical techniques.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Point #1)
The number of shots fired is not relevant. The number of HITS could be.

That depends on what you are trying to measure. The number of shots fired could certainly be important if we are trying to determine the "intent" of the attacker which was important to the study.

I fail to see how the number of shots fired or the intent of the shooter has anything to do with the [perceived] "lethality" of the projectile. The physiological effects of a .22 Short compared to those of a .50 BMG can be measured and, to varying degrees, quantified. If I've been shot ... I've been shot. The shot (or shots) will do some damage to my body, and that doesn't change whether the shooter intended to kill me or if he thought he was shooting at a manikin.

A number of years ago, in my home town, a man who worked for the Town was killed by a man he was hunting with. One of them shot a deer, but it ran off. The victim tracked it, found it, and was field dressing it. Apparently he [stupidly] removed his blaze orange vest or jacket, slit open the deer, and then lifted the upper torso up to let it bleed out. The other guy saw a deer's head through the woods and took a shot. The shot killed his hunting partner.

So the shot was, by definition, lethal. The intent was to be lethal to a deer, not to a human. Does that change anything for the dead guy, or his family?