Anecdotes and bull session reports are always useful as supporting evidence. Where exactly are these mountains of evidence that should exist that cops were being killed because their guns were inadequate? I'd love to read it. I'd also love to read about the invisible guns passing through airport X-ray machines that I used to hear about, those were good anecdotes too?
Trauma Surgeon educates us about weapons
- Thread starter maestro pistolero
- Start date
Anecdotes and bull session reports are always useful as supporting evidence. Where exactly are these mountains of evidence that should exist that cops were being killed because their guns were inadequate? I'd love to read it. I'd also love to read about the invisible guns passing through airport X-ray machines that I used to hear about, those were good anecdotes too?
I suppose that with the transition in weapons of choice over the past three decades or so to high capacity semi-automatics that if you were police chief you would recommend that your officers stay with revolvers?
Pay your NRA dues boys, because if this is the type of defense you are going to use in the imminent battles that are coming you are in trouble. Hopefully their lawyers are better.Trying to say something hasn't happened when it is overwhelmingly obvious that it has is a bad start.
Whether people believe it or not does not make it any less true. According to the FBI, the VAST majority of cops never fire their weapons at anyone. Even then, over 90% of gunfights are resolved with less than 3 rounds fired TOTAL.
There was a guy here who was shot 90 times by the police. How was he any more or less dead than if he had been shot 6 times?
The fact is, police departments like shiny new toys. (as does everyone- this is NOT a slam on LEOs)
In the 80's, the trend in police department weapons was high cap 9mm pistols (coincided with the Army selecting the Baretta). Then, there was the DAO craze. Then 40 caliber (if the FBI says it is good, it must be) now the latest is arming cops with AR type rifles.
There was a guy here who was shot 90 times by the police. How was he any more or less dead than if he had been shot 6 times?
The fact is, police departments like shiny new toys. (as does everyone- this is NOT a slam on LEOs)
In the 80's, the trend in police department weapons was high cap 9mm pistols (coincided with the Army selecting the Baretta). Then, there was the DAO craze. Then 40 caliber (if the FBI says it is good, it must be) now the latest is arming cops with AR type rifles.
BS. There is absolutely no evidence that "increased firepower" is responsible either for any more injuries or deaths (homicides have decreased since the '70s, '80 and '90s) or that police were being killed because their sidearms were inadequate. You can't provide it because it doesn't exist. Just because you believe the fallacy and propaganda doesn't make it true. Where is the evidence?
Twisting words. No one said that semi autos had less firepower.
You made the assertion that the hoods had more firepower than in the past. That is false. How many machine guns have been used to commit crimes in the last 20 years?
Compare that to the 1920's and 30's. There is LESS firepower out there than there was then. Police went to semi autos for the same reason why so many have SWAT teams now- the coolness factor.
You made the assertion that the hoods had more firepower than in the past. That is false. How many machine guns have been used to commit crimes in the last 20 years?
Compare that to the 1920's and 30's. There is LESS firepower out there than there was then. Police went to semi autos for the same reason why so many have SWAT teams now- the coolness factor.
I really am on your side. But, the notion that there is not more firepower now than in the 50's, 60's and 70's is something that any junior attorney will cram down your throat in a few minutes.
Any 6th grader will tell you that a 14+ shot 9 MM is more fire power than a 38 revolver. Bring your Bonnie and Clyde analogy to court or the legislature and see how you look.
Now, if you want to say that nothing indicates that this increase in firepower has led to more crime or death, that is a legitimate direction to take. But, saying there is not more firepower is ridiculous.
Any 6th grader will tell you that a 14+ shot 9 MM is more fire power than a 38 revolver. Bring your Bonnie and Clyde analogy to court or the legislature and see how you look.
Now, if you want to say that nothing indicates that this increase in firepower has led to more crime or death, that is a legitimate direction to take. But, saying there is not more firepower is ridiculous.
Hmm this is interesting indeed.
In September of 2002 I was approached by a trauma surgeon (with whom I have worked in South Africa while I was doing gunshot research). He asked me whether I would contribute a chapter to a multi-author book called "Ballistic Trauma." One of the editors and providers of content, was a guy called C. William Schwab. There were three other editors and the contributing authors were from all around the world, but the top three sources were SA, USA and UK.
Anyway the bottom line was that they needed a chapter on the imaging of gunshot wounds because they knew I was doing research that was mainly to do with the medical imaging of gunshot cases. I was quite flattered that they asked me.
So I was put in touch with one of the editors (not Schwab) and he told me what they were looking for. I was given a list of chapters and I was told the background of some of the contributors.
To cut a long story short, I was not comfortable with all the contributors or their associations. I didn't have any problems with the South Africans because I had worked with them already and one of them was actually the supervisor of my research, a man who I respect greatly. I just didn't like the setup with the editors I hadn't met and I didn't want to lose my best research cases and material to a chapter in a publication where I wasn't going to be the primary author. I had a discussion with a second editor (not Schwab) and it was decided that if I had doubts and conditions such as what I had laid down, then I would not be approached to contribute. That was where I left it.
Fast forward to 2005 and the book was published (but I only got it in 2007 because it was unavailable on every site I tried). I have the book here, and sure enough, C. William Schwab is one of the editors and contributors. The book is called Ballistic Trauma (second edition) and the ISBN is 1-85233-679-X. It is a paperback published by Springer. Schwab has contributed to two chapters:
Chapter 10 Damage control
Chapter 14 Abdomen and Pelvis
He is also one of the editors. In the contributors section he is listed as:
C.William Schwab, MD, FACS, FRCS (Glasg)
Department of surgery, University of Pennsylvania School of medicine, Division of Traumatology and surgical critical care, University hospital Pennsylvania Medical Center, PA, USA.
Now I don't know anything about the man. I haven't met him and I don't know what volume of cases they get at that hospital. I haven't read the whole book either (in fact my own research is on ice because of my new job). I have read pieces here and there, but not enough to comment on the book overall. The list of contributors is impressive: I have personally worked with 5 of them and had correspondence with 2 others.
When I have read it, I'll let you know what I think. The only observation I can make, just by flicking through the book, is that the illustrations and artwork are average at best. The book is also B&W which means some of the low contrast images are not clear.
In September of 2002 I was approached by a trauma surgeon (with whom I have worked in South Africa while I was doing gunshot research). He asked me whether I would contribute a chapter to a multi-author book called "Ballistic Trauma." One of the editors and providers of content, was a guy called C. William Schwab. There were three other editors and the contributing authors were from all around the world, but the top three sources were SA, USA and UK.
Anyway the bottom line was that they needed a chapter on the imaging of gunshot wounds because they knew I was doing research that was mainly to do with the medical imaging of gunshot cases. I was quite flattered that they asked me.
So I was put in touch with one of the editors (not Schwab) and he told me what they were looking for. I was given a list of chapters and I was told the background of some of the contributors.
To cut a long story short, I was not comfortable with all the contributors or their associations. I didn't have any problems with the South Africans because I had worked with them already and one of them was actually the supervisor of my research, a man who I respect greatly. I just didn't like the setup with the editors I hadn't met and I didn't want to lose my best research cases and material to a chapter in a publication where I wasn't going to be the primary author. I had a discussion with a second editor (not Schwab) and it was decided that if I had doubts and conditions such as what I had laid down, then I would not be approached to contribute. That was where I left it.
Fast forward to 2005 and the book was published (but I only got it in 2007 because it was unavailable on every site I tried). I have the book here, and sure enough, C. William Schwab is one of the editors and contributors. The book is called Ballistic Trauma (second edition) and the ISBN is 1-85233-679-X. It is a paperback published by Springer. Schwab has contributed to two chapters:
Chapter 10 Damage control
Chapter 14 Abdomen and Pelvis
He is also one of the editors. In the contributors section he is listed as:
C.William Schwab, MD, FACS, FRCS (Glasg)
Department of surgery, University of Pennsylvania School of medicine, Division of Traumatology and surgical critical care, University hospital Pennsylvania Medical Center, PA, USA.
Now I don't know anything about the man. I haven't met him and I don't know what volume of cases they get at that hospital. I haven't read the whole book either (in fact my own research is on ice because of my new job). I have read pieces here and there, but not enough to comment on the book overall. The list of contributors is impressive: I have personally worked with 5 of them and had correspondence with 2 others.
When I have read it, I'll let you know what I think. The only observation I can make, just by flicking through the book, is that the illustrations and artwork are average at best. The book is also B&W which means some of the low contrast images are not clear.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
Shot my brother-n-laws Thompson last week. It was a lot of fun.
Ok, in 1930 I could mail order machine guns, or any other weapon I wanted. That includes cannons, pistols, rifles, explosives, even bombs. No registration. No forms. No tax. Tommy guns. Bar. Sawed off shotguns. All legal.
Any 6th grader can tell you that a BAR or a Tommy gun has more firepower than a 9mm.
Well this attorney will jam down your throat that all your assertions are unsupported by any actual evidence. In my courtroom, evidence is important, mere assertions unsupported by even a scintilla of verifiable fact, no matter how shrill the argument is made, carry little weight.
I don't know how many BAR's or Tommy Guns were ever owned by the general public. Few could afford them then or now. But, a law firm researcher could get a pretty close estimate in a few days and compare that to the number of semi-automatic pistols that have been sold in the last 30 years.
Do you really want to make your case with that silly comparison?
Do you really want to make your case with that silly comparison?
Well good, get on that, come back when you have any evidence whatsoever. Both gunshot mortality and morbidity have declined in last 30 years and the post-WW2 quarter century were banner years for sale of cheap semi-autos. If "firepower" increased during the last 20 years (according to the good doctor it means something akin to lethality) then where is the evidence? Evidence is nice to have. Get some.
Until the jury is told that the 14 round (13+1) semi-auto was around since 1935 and flooded the surplus market after WW2. Your argument, though shifting sand, get weaker yet. Where is the evidence that firepower available to the public has increased substantially in the last 20 years? You've apparently abandoned that tack and now are shifting to comparing a single revolver to a single semi-auto. Juries don't like people trying to pull the wool over their eyes.
How can you be a good lawyer if you can't even keep up with what the question was.
The OP and others concluded that there is not more firepower overall because Bonnie and Clyde and a few gangsters had Tommy Guns. That is just preposterous with the explosion in popularity of high capacity semi-autos. Whether it has resulted in higher deaths is another question. But, it would take a moron to believe there is not more capacity now than there has ever been.
The OP and others concluded that there is not more firepower overall because Bonnie and Clyde and a few gangsters had Tommy Guns. That is just preposterous with the explosion in popularity of high capacity semi-autos. Whether it has resulted in higher deaths is another question. But, it would take a moron to believe there is not more capacity now than there has ever been.
I don't know what the Great Pacific Northwest was like, but when I was a kid in the Midwest, every family I knew had at least one 12-gauge shotgun and a .22 rifle, and most had a .45 cal. 1911, a .38 cal. revolver, or a .357 revolver. I was an adult before I even heard of 9mm, and an even older adult before I heard of a .380. Neither of those two are increases in firepower. In terms of firepower for all the above, the 12-gauge was and still is king, and I don't think the .44 magnum beats it in that regard.
I've always understood "firepower" to mean the actual power of the individual weapon. For example, a 16" naval gun has more firepower than a 5" naval gun. In addition, "firepower" can also mean total power of a platform. For example, an aircraft carrier with its complement of bombs and missiles has more firepower than a battleship.
Here, I think the term "firepower" is being confused with "capacity" in terms of magazine capacity, or with "damage potential" in terms of hollow points compared to hard ball, or both.
In my experience, firepower has not increased (no handgun I am aware of has more firepower than a 12-gauge shotgun), but capacity and damage potential have.