Have you noticed?

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by Angel, Apr 11, 2007.

  1. Angel

    Angel Guest

    Have you ever noticed that if someone is intending to shoot another person, it usually takes multiple shots to kill that person but when it's an accident (mostly stray bullets) just one bullet and some poor soul dies. Even if its a .22
  2. bigtaco

    bigtaco Active Member

    yeah really. i think that can be directly attributed to adrenaline. i've seen the same thing in wildlife.

    the doe feeding over a cornpile drops like a rock.

    the buck running from dogs will take lead as fast as you can give it.

    oh what fun we have in north and south carolina.

    i've heard numerous times that the most common caliber in fatal shootings is the beloved .22. i've never seen or heard any legislation that targeted this gentle but certainly lethal round.

    but for some reason .50 calibers are super dangerous, even though they're rarely USED in crimes. and anything attached to the gun like a collapsible stock and heaven forbid a forward grip, somehow makes the weapon worse.

    i love the way the statistician can juggle the numbers. after the assault weapons ban, crime that involved assault weapons dropped 50%!!!

    before the ban, those types of weapons were used in 2% of criminal acts. after the ban they were used in 1% of criminal acts.

    WAY TO GO LAWMAKERS!!!! KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!!!! total crime remains largely within it's normal ebb and flow, which seems to ebb and flow directly with the state of the economy as far as i can see and put together. you succeeded in reducing not the amount of crime, but reducing criminals to using regular old guns to get the deed done.

  3. Syntax360

    Syntax360 Premium Member

    +1. This is probably the biggest factor.

    In the event of an accidental shooting, multiple shots are almost never fired, so it almost certainly has to be one shot that kills the victim. And in general, I believe the statistic regarding odds of survival from a gunshot wound(s) in this country is something like 80%. The vast majority of people involved in accidental shootings live, and the media takes the minority who do not and parades them around their newscasts for a week.

    Also worth noting, if we're talking about ALL intentional shootings...

    Regarding the defensive shootings, a JHP is usually used. Both JHP and FMJ will be effective in incapacitating the target if shot placement is good, provided both penetrate deep enough to hit the vitals. The defensive shooter will usually fire the least number of required shots to stop the threat - a smart bad guy follows the first drops of blood to the ground. A good JHP will usually only produce 1 hole for the target to bleed from, and paramedics will usually be called shortly thereafter. All of this adds up to a high likelihood of survival. However, the vast majority of intentional shootings hardly qualify as defensive. So...

    When we're talking "offensive" shootings, the average hood rat doesn't run around with a magazine full of Rangers, Gold Dots, HSTs, or DPX. Rather, they usually candy-stripe half the mag with the cheapest ball they could get their greasy hands on. In the event of an offensive shooting, an excessive number of shots are usually fired and the perps usually do not immediately pull out their cell phones and call an ambulance. As mentioned, targets of offensive shootings are most often hit with ball, which usually produces 2 holes to bleed from. Faster blood loss increases the likelihood of death. In these circumstances, the victim still dies, but it seems to have required many shots to "do the job", which thus pools these cases into the "died, but 'required' multiple shots" category.
  4. Zundfolge

    Zundfolge Member

    nevermind ... I'm just being redundant ... again ... :oops:
  5. socofn

    socofn New Member

    this is the major reason i went to the styer .40 ( I have a vintage 2000 M40 and started carrying a JHP bullet). I worked as a nurse in a major trauma center in a inner city. Our usual client was a male 18-30 who had been shot at least 3 times with a 9mm. Most of the time they lived to tell the tale. Some of the sadest things that I saw were young people who had been shot with a .22 or even .25. They were seriously injured with lots of recovery time needed if they lived. I still amazing me that people want to ban guns and there are more kids that drown in swimming pools every year than die from accidental shootings. Jayson
  6. Syntax360

    Syntax360 Premium Member

    Ya, and more kids die EACH from natural disasters, poisoning, falling, suffication, fire/burning, and motor vehicle accidents every year, too. Seems to me our priorities are a bit off if we rabidly going after the thing that is responsible for only 1.6% of child deaths per year. Also, 19.9% more homicides per year are committed with feet, fists, and hands than with firearms - how do we license/confiscate/ban those?
  7. bigtaco

    bigtaco Active Member

    that, (well said syntax) to me is the bigger picture.

    the gun is a tool. the intent can't be legislated. to ban guns begs the question, "can we still use swords?"

    and if not... "can we still hit each other?"

    and if we can... "can we really enforce a permanent restraining order that prohibits 1 person who outweighs another by more than 40 pounds from being within 50 ft.?"

    without guns, big dudes rule the world. with their fists. and the physically weaker person is automatically at a disadvantage in any confrontation. which clearly opens the door to intimidation.

    imagine the consequence to women, who are frequently targeted due to their generally smaller stature.

    are we all forced to study martial arts from birth just to ensure our safety?

    imagine an intruder just entered your house. you diall 911 at the first sign. think they'll get there in time? and why do we call 911?


    i'm not waiting on the fire deparment!!! i'm grabbing the extinguisher and fighting a fire as soon as possible.

    why should i have to wait on the cops?

    we all know cpr... or we should. why be forced to wait on public servants to perform emergency tasks?
  8. posterboy7

    posterboy7 New Member

    Angel, I was thinking the same think just a couple of days ago... Good question!

    Back in '97 or '98 a (PA) county supervisor got in some serious hot water when his errant .22 shot hit a woman in the arm while she was hanging laundry. He claimed he was shooting at a ground hog, but the bullet found its way some distance to the woman. Maybe the hog was in a tree. :)

    Just a couple of months ago a bright young black girl from the next town over was shot in the head and killed by her cousin in her grandparents' house. Grandpa hadn't locked up his guns and the kids were playing good guys and bad guys or some such. What a sad, depressing waste.

    No real point to these stories, but I does bring one thought to mind... Accident shootings, I imagine, are more often leathal to young children since they are smaller then adults.

    Having children can make a person irrational, or maybe just more keenly aware of all the dangers to children. If you don't understand guns, then they are all the more frightening. On the other hand, the only house that has guns in it that my daughters are likely to play in is our house, since their friends have Mennonite parents. I have to admit, that thought is a comfort to me and I can totally understand the concern of other parents if they learned that I had guns.

    Anyway, just kinda rambling away here...
  9. Angel

    Angel Guest

    posterboy7, you have a point there.

    My response is that if I had kids in the house my gun would be locked in a safe I can easily access. At the moment there are no kids and there are several security measures (alarm systems, guard dogs, etc) that an intruder has to pass through before they can find and steal my gun.

    I mentioned this because I have read many stories of a bad guy being shot with a 9mm, .40, .45 ACP, even in the face and still live but there are many cases of someone shot with a .22 and die.

    There is probably some truth to the Adrenalin thing.
  10. Netfotoj

    Netfotoj Premium Member

    BT said:
    Reminds me of a popular saying in the Old West: "God created men; Colonel Colt made them equal."

    Thank God for Sam Colt and all the pistol makers before and after him. If not for them, we'd still be throwing rocks. And the ACLU would be trying to ban rocks.

    "When they ban rocks, only the criminals will have rocks."
  11. bigtaco

    bigtaco Active Member

    the other thing to consider about the .22 verses the larger calibers is the ricochet effect of the small round with no energy.

    large round ammo is designed to penetrate through clothing, then through any bones. then continue penetrating through softer tissue like muscles/lungs.

    to do this it needs plenty of mass and lots of energy.

    a .22 hitting a shoulder blade would likely break the shoulder blade but not penetrate much further. thusly being ineffective. a 9mm is going to punch right through and do some damage.

    keeping this in mind about the two... if you manage to get a .22 into the chest cavity, like between the ribs. once that bullet hits anything else, like another rib or the spine, it will bounce and take a new trajectory, destroying more tissue. a 9mm fmj would just sail straight through and make a little pencil hole.

    my non gun friend and i have a history of great gun debates. he thinks that armor peircing ammo and "that ammo that expands to be more deadly" should be banned.

    he doesn't realize that any fmj bullet-like projectile going over ~2100 fps will pierce body armor that is designed to defeat handgun rounds. this encompasses every fmj round in every rifle.

    but to purposely make the rounds not pierce armor, we make the noses soft.

    this is what you need for expansion. bringing us to the "bullets that expand" bit.

    he has a hard time realizing the duality of these truths. he wants a bullet that won't pierce armor, but doesn't expand. i think they're on aisle 9. right beside the hybrid cars that run on both hopes and dreams.

    he's also big on the guns locked up to keep them away from kids. how can anyone not be?

    but it makes you wonder how diligent parents are about keeping household chemicals and presciption drugs out of children's reach. they're just as deadly. and if we passed legislation mandating that any hazardous substance be locked up... how do we enforce it?

    if some kid dies from drinking the bleach, everything else is blamed... except for the bleach.

    anyhoo. point is that .22 is very dangerous. but looks so cute and small, no legislator could ever consider it dangerous
    when viewed next to a .50bmg round. the logic is so flawed on so many levels.

    it's why i continue to have these debates with him. his ultimate end is, "well, 'they' oughtta do something". and my ultimate end is, "yeah, 'they' oughtta ban those damn cigarettes, cause they serve no other function than giving people cancer."

    SELFDEFENSE Premium Member

    Yep. I noticed Murphy's Law.