Handguns suck for self defense (Graphic Video)

[unshelledpilot]

What the doctor and this discussion fails to concern itself with is the nature of FATAL wounds and not the treatable/survivable variety. I'd be just as interested, if not more, to hear from a coroner or medical examiner about the nature of the fatal wounds from handguns vs rifles. The video example was of what I would consider a "casual" shooting [for lack of a better term] as opposed to how it would play out if you were defending yourself, aiming for center of mass and emptying the magazine. I agree with the other posts that I'm more likely to have a handgun handy as opposed to a rifle and that even a small handgun is superior to throwing rocks, so really the whole point of this topic is moot. Like everything else, the lens you view the data from colors how you view the facts. And yes, FWIW I watched the whole video.

The doc made a point near the end of his presentation that 6 of 7 handgun gunshot victims survive. Sure, ANY gsw can be fatal if not treated in a timely manner, though i wouldn't say any of those were "casual" wounds. However, the lesson I took away from this is that caliber is largely irrelevant. I would say that the wounds shown are fairly typical of self defense, given the research that sd shootings rarely use more than a handful of rounds.

 

[Thor]

"Fortunately for all of us who shoot the 45-70, it can be considered to be the deepest penetrating of the various 458 calibers. This is not due to any particular inherent superiority, but due to the 45-70's "inability" to achieve the velocity with heavy bullets that leads to decreases in penetration."

Garrett Cartridges Inc.

Garrett Cartridges Inc.

A Texas Ranger was asked at a tea party why he wore his pistol...was he suspecting trouble? He replied, "No mam, if I was expecting trouble I would have brought my rifle."

Even so, not getting shot is the best option.

 

[Mark 1911]

Handguns may suck in comparison to long guns, but "no guns" sucks in comparison to handguns.

 

[GIJEW]

There a couple of xrays showing a 'double tap' to the upper chest--one from the front and one from the side--and the side picture showed that the bullet stopped and, inch or so, after going through the sternum. Given the reliance on aiming at the thorax, I'd like to know what caliber that was--32acp; .380?

 

[Cygnus]

Handguns may suck in comparison to long guns, but "no guns" sucks in comparison to handguns.

I saw that shirt for sale at the 1500 years ago.

Also to the .35-70 crowd. Wow. What a round. My old boss in Fort Wayne had one. Before I shot it he says comfirmed that I owned and shot a .12 gauge shotgun. He then says "It'll be a bit more than that..." 3 rounds was enough.

 

[unshelledpilot]

There a couple of xrays showing a 'double tap' to the upper chest--one from the front and one from the side--and the side picture showed that the bullet stopped and, inch or so, after going through the sternum. Given the reliance on aiming at the thorax, I'd like to know what caliber that was--32acp; .380?

If I recall, the doc said it was from a .40. This is why I don't put any credence in the caliber debate.

 

[Peter Potamus]

[h=2]Handguns suck for self defense[/h]

Yep, that must be why so few people buy them.......

 

[mondomojo]

The doc made a point near the end of his presentation that 6 of 7 handgun gunshot victims survive.

How many of those wounds were shot with the intent to kill, as in multiple gunshots at center of mass? I know it's not disclosed in the video, but the intent of the injury matters most. How many of those reported injuries were accidental? How many were out of anger with intent to hurt but not necessarily kill? How many were actually shot with the intent to kill by someone shooting deliberately into center of mass? I think without that data the 6 out of 7 numbers are meaningless.

When I used the word "casual" it was not intended to diminish the extent of injury, but rather the motivation of the shooter. The guy shown in the video getting shot was shot to deter him from further interference and make hime retreat. It appeared to me that the shooter was not primarily concerned with shooting to kill, but rather make a speedy and problem free egress. That is what I meant by "casual". Prolly a crapy choice of words, but i never said I are a writer.

 

[unshelledpilot]

How many of those wounds were shot with the intent to kill, as in multiple gunshots at center of mass? I know it's not disclosed in the video, but the intent of the injury matters most. How many of those reported injuries were accidental? How many were out of anger with intent to hurt but not necessarily kill? How many were actually shot with the intent to kill by someone shooting deliberately into center of mass? I think without that data the 6 out of 7 numbers are meaningless.

When I used the word "casual" it was not intended to diminish the extent of injury, but rather the motivation of the shooter. The guy shown in the video getting shot was shot to deter him from further interference and make hime retreat. It appeared to me that the shooter was not primarily concerned with shooting to kill, but rather make a speedy and problem free egress. That is what I meant by "casual". Prolly a crapy choice of words, but i never said I are a writer.

I totally understand what you're going for. I don't think there's any way for us normal folk to determine from the info presented the intent of the shooter in regards to the wounds inflicted. I took that into consideration when watching. The lesson that I took away from this presentation is that diameter doesn't matter in handgun rounds. Most self defense situations are resolved one of two ways: physiologically (blood loss, cns destruction) or psychologically (the sight of a gun, giving up when shot one or two times). In cases where the bad guy doesn't give up, the only option is to shoot until he stops. In that case more is better and I would be better off having 53+1 of 9mm as opposed to 21+1 of .45.

 

[GunSlinger]

My takeaway from this is that I want this surgeon working on me if I'm ever wounded...or someone he's trained.

 

[DarkLight]

Last year at the Paul E Palooza II memorial we tested 9mm, 40 cal, 223, Birdshot, and buckshot on two hogs that had just been humanely put down. We explored wound cavities and then went to practical application of emergency gun shot first aid.

It spoke volumes about just how little caliber matters and how much shot placement does. The 9 and the 40 had no real difference in penetration or diameter, but the 9 hit the back of the skull and cracked it. The 223 fragmented and was nasty with trying to find all the pieces. Birdshot did nothing more than outer flesh damage, while buckshot broke both legs.

I also have a buddy that worked the ER in Gary for a couple years. He saw gun shot wounds from every caliber imaginable, even a guy who was literally shot in the face with a 7.62 x 39 and WALKED into the ER complaining about a headache. He was completely coherent for 30 mins, and then flat lined. Its my understanding that majority of people that died in his ER were shot with 22's that bounced around in the body so much, the round finally hit enough organs that they bled to death.

 

[Thor]

For those who like reading about this sort of thing the book "African Rifles and Cartridges" by John Taylor is actually an entertaining read. He spent decades on the continent shooting just about everything with every weapon available. He was a professional hunter and spent a fair amount of time figuring out where the bullets went and what they did then wrote stories about the hunts.

He said in the book that he would feel comfortable walking the length and breadth of Africa with a .22 rifle and a large caliber handgun. Fill the pot with the .22 and kill things trying to kill you with the handgun.

 

[CountryBoy19]

I totally understand what you're going for. I don't think there's any way for us normal folk to determine from the info presented the intent of the shooter in regards to the wounds inflicted. I took that into consideration when watching. The lesson that I took away from this presentation is that diameter doesn't matter in handgun rounds. Most self defense situations are resolved one of two ways: physiologically (blood loss, cns destruction) or psychologically (the sight of a gun, giving up when shot one or two times). In cases where the bad guy doesn't give up, the only option is to shoot until he stops. In that case more is better and I would be better off having 53+1 of 9mm as opposed to 21+1 of .45.

I think you may have misunderstood something... the doc was very clear that in handgun rounds, because they don't have the speed to create a secondary wound channel, diameter is a very crucial thing as far as the creation of a wound channel (primary channel created by crushing of the tissue in the path of the bullet). This is why we have expanding bullets; expanding bullets also lead to less penetration (can be good or bad).

Of course, there are numerous other factors that play into how severe the injury is, so yes, I will agree that as a whole caliber plays very little role.

All this being said, a very basic summary:
Handguns: primary wound cavity size plays an important role because it may make the difference in hitting a critical components or not. We can use an expanding bullet and trade off penetration depth for large wound channel; they may be good or may be bad depending on the specific situation, we don't know until after the fact.
Rifles: energy is the killer; more energy in a high-velocity rounds means large secondary wound channel means the doc can't save you if the bullet path was anywhere near a critical component (because the secondary wound cavity wiped that component/system out).

 

[mondomojo]

My takeaway from this is that I want this surgeon working on me if I'm ever wounded...or someone he's trained.

No you don't, he's not a surgeon he's a gas passer [aka anesthesiologist]. If he cut you open you'd be dead as that is not what he's trained to do. However he's totally qualified at keeping you breathing while knocked out on drugs he administered. Interesting job he has, bringing you as close to death as possible and bringing you back - all through chemistry.

 

[foszoe]

Fatal wounds can be delivered by any caliber, but that doesn't necessarily mean death will come soon enough to save you.

 

[Thor]

Fatal wounds can be delivered by any caliber, but that doesn't necessarily mean death will come soon enough to save you.

The fight is not over until it is over...

 

[unshelledpilot]

I think you may have misunderstood something... the doc was very clear that in handgun rounds, because they don't have the speed to create a secondary wound channel, diameter is a very crucial thing as far as the creation of a wound channel (primary channel created by crushing of the tissue in the path of the bullet). This is why we have expanding bullets; expanding bullets also lead to less penetration (can be good or bad).

I completely understood that. But, in my opinion, and like lovemachine mentioned above, handguns are all about compromise. For my situation, having more ammo to poke holes in the bad guy is more important than the unreliable factor of the primary wound channel. In the end, I want every advantage.

 

[Woobie]

How many of those wounds were shot with the intent to kill, as in multiple gunshots at center of mass? I know it's not disclosed in the video, but the intent of the injury matters most. How many of those reported injuries were accidental? How many were out of anger with intent to hurt but not necessarily kill? How many were actually shot with the intent to kill by someone shooting deliberately into center of mass? I think without that data the 6 out of 7 numbers are meaningless.

When I used the word "casual" it was not intended to diminish the extent of injury, but rather the motivation of the shooter. The guy shown in the video getting shot was shot to deter him from further interference and make hime retreat. It appeared to me that the shooter was not primarily concerned with shooting to kill, but rather make a speedy and problem free egress. That is what I meant by "casual". Prolly a crapy choice of words, but i never said I are a writer.

I beleive the 6:7 number was based upon 12,000 deaths in 68,000 assaults with a handgun. But I would have to watch it again to be sure.