National Actually, guns do kill people, according to a new study

[awshoot]

"Shootings with larger-caliber handguns were more deadly but
no more sustained or accurate than shootings with smaller-caliber handguns."



I don't see that. They seem to be saying that large caliber bullets are more deadly in spite of being less accurate and less "sustained" (? - fewer rounds fired?).

Aren't .380 and 9mm the same diameter? Their results would imply no difference.

It's the implication. They sound surprised that heavy cartridges aren't more accurate than light ones. Hear it this way: "shootings with large-caliber handguns ... were not more sustained or more accurate than shootings with small-caliber handguns." Or reverse it and remove the double negative: "[to our surprise,] small-caliber handguns were not more accurate than large-caliber handguns."

 

[awshoot]

They addressed this: "Strictly speaking, this round has a narrower diameter than even the medium calibers studied, but the authors say they categorized it as large-caliber because of the increased bullet velocity provided by the round's large cartridge, which contains a relatively high volume of gun powder."

But you are right, they are totally inconsistent. They put .38 special in medium, but .40S&W in large - so in that case they ignored cartridge size.

Perhaps they addressed it in the newspaper article but in the actual paper itself (which is supposed to be the scientific part) they didn't address it -- at least searching for "7.62" doesn't land on anything addressing why it was placed in "large" nor does searching for "rifle" -- they merely indicate where it was placed. But even if they did address it, they are mixing up two concepts, kinetic energy and caliber, and yet at the end of the paper are very close to openly advocating for banning larger calibers despite contaminating their caliber analysis (the small calibers should have gotten +1 kill and the large calibers -1 kill -- this is a 2 point spread skewing the data in the direction they want it to go).

What bugs me is that manipulated data like this will be used to create a burden on law-abiding gun owners even though it ultimately will not accomplish what they say they want it to accomplish. And I don't think they care whether it is effective. They have a prejudice against gun owners and are pushing their own brand of segregation and repression.

 

[Cavedweller]

Any way you look at it, it's garbage. Pseudoscience. Sloppy at that.

 

[Jonnyuma]

This is just a dog whistle for a new talking point. Within a week Pelosi, Schumer, and all of the plugged-in pundits will be shrieking about killer-calibers or whatever new catch phrase their handlers invent.
Remember "cop killer bullets", "dumdum rounds", "AK47 is the weapon of choice for drug dealers and gang bangers" (I believe these two researchers just called Bill Clinton and Janet Reno big fat liars).

In 2018 the media sets the agenda for leftist politicians instead of reporting on it. Just like they do with global warming (it causes everything from Islamic terrorism to yeast infections) they're always looking for a new avenue to go down, a new hook. This "new" thing will be their shiny object for at least a few weeks.

 

[brenty]

Lol, these regressives are so delusional they actually think they are bringing people over to their side

 

[tac]

I didn't read it either, but I guess it was written by the American relatives of the guy in the Irish National Ballistics Forensic Science Laboratories [this week's title, so far] who actually stood up in court and - I quote 'It is a scientific fact that a .308 calibre bullet is deadly accurate and fatal at a distance of five miles.' He also justified a police officer's refusal to grant a firearms license [in the Republic of Ireland they have licenses, in the UK they have certificates - check out the difference - it is NOT semantics] for a Lee-Enfiled .303cal rifle on the grounds that it was 'simply too accurate a weapon to be allowed in civilian hands [in the RoI they are correctly called firearms - weapons are for the military]. This comment overlooked the fact that the applicant was asking for a renewal of a license that he had had since 2003.

You'll find that dwonghoodship is not a national trait, but is a planet-wide phenomenum.

tac

 

[uberguy]

What're ya trying to say? Would you share your thoughts or conclusion maybe?

That gun control laws do not effect this demographic of criminal.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

As a child I was hit with a .44 or .45 caliber bullet. (By the time it hit me it was quite deformed.) Because of the lack of severity of actual damage and the seeming randomness of the events, I hesitate to say shot.

At extreme range in the big toe. Bullet was grinding along just under the surface of the dirt and asphalt mix, and popped up and hit me in the toe. It was my first second degree burn, and it did not really do much more harm than that. Its energy was almost gone. I got extremely lucky.

Now it was never officially reported and my parents didn't believe me and actually spanked me for having the bullet and saying it had hit me.

But, I mean, stories like mine will never factor in.

But even so, some dumbass shot that bullet. He or she pulled the trigger.

 

[Jonnyuma]

...simply too accurate a weapon to be allowed in civilian hands...

That's some kinda crazy shizz right there.
My mind won't allow itself to twist enough to fit that "logic". I can usually see where someone's viewpoint is coming from, even if I wholeheartedly disagree with it and/or believe their logic is faulty or irrational... not on that one tho.

 

[Jonnyuma]

But, I mean, stories like mine will never factor in.

I'm not even sure I understand that story.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

I'm not even sure I understand that story.

Long story short, as a small child, I got hit by a large caliber bullet at extreme range in my backyard. It functionally did no permanent damage or anything requiring medical attention. It was fired by some idiot who didn't know his target or what was beyond it. It hit me on the left big toe.

So... you may have plenty of instances in lower income areas like where I grew up, where people are hit by something and it does minimal damage and misses being reported. It skews numbers towards a more deadly appearance in studies.

I figure it isn't the most common thing, but I seriously doubt if it is entirely statistically insignificant.

 

[Jonnyuma]

Long story short, as a small child, I got hit by a large caliber bullet at extreme range in my backyard. It functionally did no permanent damage or anything requiring medical attention. It was fired by some idiot who didn't know his target or what was beyond it. It hit me on the left big toe.

So... you may have plenty of instances in lower income areas like where I grew up, where people are hit by something and it does minimal damage and misses being reported. It skews numbers towards a more deadly appearance in studies.

I figure it isn't the most common thing, but I seriously doubt if it is entirely statistically insignificant.

So why'd yer folks whoop on ya? That seems a little inappropriate...

 

[Wombat of Doom]

So why'd yer folks whoop on ya?

That was just Mom's general response to anything. I have long since quit trying to figure it out and just focus on doing a better job with my kids.

 

[billstaf]

I read this stupid twaddle. I guess it took some kind of 'scientific' study to figure out that .22LR, .25, and .32 are somehow less lethal than 9mm, 10mm, .40 & .44 ammo. Did it really need a study to figure that out? Could have saved a lot of time and money by just asking any gun owner. Also came as a huge surprise that the vast majority of the shootings occurred in inner city neighborhoods among gang members and other criminals. Who could've guessed that? No idea why they threw in an AK round and somehow omitted the 5.56 AR round. Only thing I could think of was that the little .223 round might have skewed their desired study outcome. The article is so stupidly lame that it must be embarrassing to have published it.

 

[best defense]

Analysis | Actually, guns do kill people, according to a new study

**********************************************************************
Of course this makes perfect sense. If I hit you in the head with a small tack hammer it is much less likely to kill you than if I hit you in the head with a ten pound sledge hammer,
and if I run over you with a big truck it is more likely to kill you than if I run over you with a moped.

 

[tac]

'Less lethal', eh?

Somebody explain how that one works, please.

It's like say 'partly pregnant', or 'slightly dead'.

Lethal is lethal.

tac

 

[billstaf]

'Less lethal', eh?

Somebody explain how that one works, please.

It's like say 'partly pregnant', or 'slightly dead'.

Lethal is lethal.

tac

Well, you're right of course. Lethal is lethal. Kind of like saying something is more "unique" than something else. Doesn't make much sense. It's my guess that this 'study' decided that .22LR hits are more survivable than .44 hits are, which is true. What this information has to do with the gun control argument is tangentially related at best and really adds nothing to the issue, but it was published in JAMA so it MUST be important.

 

[bbbass]

That's some kinda crazy shizz right there.
My mind won't allow itself to twist enough to fit that "logic". I can usually see where someone's viewpoint is coming from, even if I wholeheartedly disagree with it and/or believe their logic is faulty or irrational... not on that one tho.

No they'd rather civies shoot Chicago gangsta style!

 

[bbbass]

**********************************************************************
Of course this makes perfect sense. If I hit you in the head with a small tack hammer it is much less likely to kill you than if I hit you in the head with a ten pound sledge hammer,
and if I run over you with a big truck it is more likely to kill you than if I run over you with a moped.

Ya mean like one o them redneck pickemup thingies... outlaw them now!!! Our forefathers used mopeds and nobody should own anything bigger!!!

 

[Jonnyuma]

Lol, these regressives are so delusional they actually think they are bringing people over to their side

No they don't. A lot of the rank and file are true believers... the pros know better. Their aim is to spin-up the base, and their BASE is radicals and people who consider themselves too smart to be burdened by facts. The modern left is like that and the people who actually know better, never bother to correct them because they're hysterical voters. They're the ones who say, "We have to do SOMETHING!" and will throw votes at whichever candidate promises to address their pet cause.

Shannon Watts knows good and damn well that what her "followers" say is lies and untrue ("We need to stop having machine guns delivered to crazy people's doors!"), but she lets it go unanswered because it garners D votes. Pelosi, Schumer, and the rest of them whose business is "The Law" know better too. There are some true dumazzes in gov't too, like Warren, DeLeon, etc. But most of em are hip to the laws and know that the rhetoric is bullshizz... they just let it go because they're whores and... well, just because their whores.

No idea why they threw in an AK round and somehow omitted the 5.56 AR round.

Because there was no shootings done w a 5.56 round. If there was, it would have been front and center.