TexasCHLforum.com

magicglock wrote:I think the numbers are skewed from the doctors view. Yes, 6 of 7 that end up in the ER survive but that does not include those that never made it to the ER. For an accurate representation of the survival rate you have to count both methods of transportation, the coroner van and the ambulance.

Nor does it account for the accidental injuries and the misses that hit non-vital areas. Statistically, looking at ALL gunshot wounds, that 6 out of 7 might be true. Trust me, if somebody puts a +P+ round through at attacker's chest and/or head, he's going down, and for good. In addition, there's the huge variability, mostly psychological, of how people react to being shot. Some fall to the ground in hysteria if they get winged by a .22. Others take a cylinder full of .357s and they're still standing up and running around. There are just a huge, huge number of variables here; it's really meaningless to make a blanket statement like "6 out of 7 people with gunshot wounds survive."

Ruark wrote:

magicglock wrote:I think the numbers are skewed from the doctors view. Yes, 6 of 7 that end up in the ER survive but that does not include those that never made it to the ER. For an accurate representation of the survival rate you have to count both methods of transportation, the coroner van and the ambulance.

Nor does it account for the accidental injuries and the misses that hit non-vital areas. Statistically, looking at ALL gunshot wounds, that 6 out of 7 might be true. Trust me, if somebody puts a +P+ round through at attacker's chest and/or head, he's going down, and for good. In addition, there's the huge variability, mostly psychological, of how people react to being shot. Some fall to the ground in hysteria if they get winged by a .22. Others take a cylinder full of .357s and they're still standing up and running around. There are just a huge, huge number of variables here; it's really meaningless to make a blanket statement like "6 out of 7 people with gunshot wounds survive."

I take exception to this on two grounds. First of all, as I pointed out earlier the doctor got the 6 out of 7 number from CDC statistics for all gunshot victims across the US for one year. If you want to argue with that, then I don't know what to say. Do you really think the CDC is lying?

Second, to make a blanket statement like "Trust me, if somebody puts a +P+ round through at attacker's chest and/or head, he's going down, and for good" flies in the face of the very video that we're discussing, where the doctor showed a patient who was shot COM with a .45 and survived. Representative Giffords was shot in the head, and she's walking around, living proof that your statement isn't always true.

The entire point of the video, for me at least, was that gun shot wounds are very likely survivable if you get medical treatment quickly. Very few shots kill immediately. The vast majority kill through blood loss.

Did you even watch the video?

The Annoyed Man wrote:

karder wrote:If I have an attacker still charging after 30 rounds or 5.7, I will look awfully silly in front of St. Peter!

Well that's because he carries a .45, and he'll tell you "I told you so, but you wouldn't listen!"

Yeah, that would stink!

I'll never argue with .45acp or the 1911. In fact the only handguns I own which I have any kind of emotional attachment are my Colts including my 1911 Colts.
Most of time in life, it is the cool head that pervails in crises situations, and I think whoever could keep his cool while being shot at would have the ultimate advantage regardless, what caliber he is using. I still must admit to enjoying the caliber debates however!

My take away was that unless the GSW from a handgun damages/disrupts the vital central nervous function, the loss of blood is primary factor that eventually incapacitates the BG. The more rounds of an acceptable caliber the better - all in a reasonable carry arrangement. Everybody has to choose what that means for themselves.

baldeagle wrote:

Ruark wrote: Nor does it account for the accidental injuries and the misses that hit non-vital areas. Statistically, looking at ALL gunshot wounds, that 6 out of 7 might be true. Trust me, if somebody puts a +P+ round through at attacker's chest and/or head, he's going down, and for good. In addition, there's the huge variability, mostly psychological, of how people react to being shot. Some fall to the ground in hysteria if they get winged by a .22. Others take a cylinder full of .357s and they're still standing up and running around. There are just a huge, huge number of variables here; it's really meaningless to make a blanket statement like "6 out of 7 people with gunshot wounds survive."

I take exception to this on two grounds. First of all, as I pointed out earlier the doctor got the 6 out of 7 number from CDC statistics for all gunshot victims across the US for one year. If you want to argue with that, then I don't know what to say. Do you really think the CDC is lying?

Second, to make a blanket statement like "Trust me, if somebody puts a +P+ round through at attacker's chest and/or head, he's going down, and for good" flies in the face of the very video that we're discussing, where the doctor showed a patient who was shot COM with a .45 and survived. Representative Giffords was shot in the head, and she's walking around, living proof that your statement isn't always true.

The entire point of the video, for me at least, was that gun shot wounds are very likely survivable if you get medical treatment quickly. Very few shots kill immediately. The vast majority kill through blood loss.

Did you even watch the video?

+1 on baldeagle's response. The 6 of 7 is not a blanket statement. It is a statistical reality. The "trust me..." is a blanket statement with no data behind it and much data against it. Back to my earlier post, if I put a .30-06 into a deer's chest and it runs 75 yards before dying, I think a chest shot with any handgun is survivable... at least for long enough for them to do some harm, and possibly long term depending on the specifics of a hit and how quickly they get medical care.

Good discussion, and I too must admit to enjoying the caliber discussion. Do we need a support group?

SlowDave wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

Ruark wrote: Nor does it account for the accidental injuries and the misses that hit non-vital areas. Statistically, looking at ALL gunshot wounds, that 6 out of 7 might be true. Trust me, if somebody puts a +P+ round through at attacker's chest and/or head, he's going down, and for good. In addition, there's the huge variability, mostly psychological, of how people react to being shot. Some fall to the ground in hysteria if they get winged by a .22. Others take a cylinder full of .357s and they're still standing up and running around. There are just a huge, huge number of variables here; it's really meaningless to make a blanket statement like "6 out of 7 people with gunshot wounds survive."

I take exception to this on two grounds. First of all, as I pointed out earlier the doctor got the 6 out of 7 number from CDC statistics for all gunshot victims across the US for one year. If you want to argue with that, then I don't know what to say. Do you really think the CDC is lying?

Second, to make a blanket statement like "Trust me, if somebody puts a +P+ round through at attacker's chest and/or head, he's going down, and for good" flies in the face of the very video that we're discussing, where the doctor showed a patient who was shot COM with a .45 and survived. Representative Giffords was shot in the head, and she's walking around, living proof that your statement isn't always true.

The entire point of the video, for me at least, was that gun shot wounds are very likely survivable if you get medical treatment quickly. Very few shots kill immediately. The vast majority kill through blood loss.

Did you even watch the video?

+1 on baldeagle's response. The 6 of 7 is not a blanket statement. It is a statistical reality. The "trust me..." is a blanket statement with no data behind it and much data against it. Back to my earlier post, if I put a .30-06 into a deer's chest and it runs 75 yards before dying, I think a chest shot with any handgun is survivable... at least for long enough for them to do some harm, and possibly long term depending on the specifics of a hit and how quickly they get medical care.

Good discussion, and I too must admit to enjoying the caliber discussion. Do we need a support group?

I'm not sure I'm following you here SlowDave. You are agreeing with Baldeagle and disagreeing that the CDC's data on "all gun shot victims across the U.S. for one year?"


I don't see it as a caliber war. It's really more about rifle vs. handgun and very little about handgun calibers themselves. He only states that a bigger handgun caliber might give someone a slightly better chance of damaging something important. Otherwise, the effectiveness of a 9mm or .45ACP are roughly the same and just as ineffective if nothing important is damaged. He also made the same point with rifle rounds when comparing the 5.56 vs. the 7.62.

baldeagle wrote:The more I thought about this video, the more I realized that i had learned something very valuable. I've never been in a firefight, so I've never been shot. In my endless gaming scenarios, I never get shot, because getting shot meant dying. Now I realize that getting shot means you have a chance of dying, but you also have a very good chance of surviving (depending on where you get hit, of course!) So I think my fear of getting hit has been lessened, which should make me less apprehensive (and therefore more steady on the trigger) in a real firefight. Mind you, I still don't want to get in one, and I pray that I never do, but if it should happen, I think my fear will be less. Besides, if you get hit and you still know it, you're probably OK. If you get hit in the "right" place, you won't last long anyway.

IMO, your statement confirms the saying that "You can't miss fast enough to win."

SlowDave wrote:Do we need a support group?

We have one. It's called TexasCHLForum.com.

Very informative; thanks for the post.

C-dub wrote:

SlowDave wrote:

baldeagle wrote: I take exception to this on two grounds. First of all, as I pointed out earlier the doctor got the 6 out of 7 number from CDC statistics for all gunshot victims across the US for one year. If you want to argue with that, then I don't know what to say. Do you really think the CDC is lying?

Second, to make a blanket statement like "Trust me, if somebody puts a +P+ round through at attacker's chest and/or head, he's going down, and for good" flies in the face of the very video that we're discussing, where the doctor showed a patient who was shot COM with a .45 and survived. Representative Giffords was shot in the head, and she's walking around, living proof that your statement isn't always true.

The entire point of the video, for me at least, was that gun shot wounds are very likely survivable if you get medical treatment quickly. Very few shots kill immediately. The vast majority kill through blood loss.

Did you even watch the video?

+1 on baldeagle's response. The 6 of 7 is not a blanket statement. It is a statistical reality. <snip>

I'm not sure I'm following you here SlowDave. You are agreeing with Baldeagle and disagreeing that the CDC's data on "all gun shot victims across the U.S. for one year?"

I am agreeing with Baldeagle and the CDC that the statistics are what they are. Baldeagle was disagreeing with the previous guy (which I cut out) who was shooting down those statistics in favor of a "trust me..." statement.

C-dub wrote: I don't see it as a caliber war. It's really more about rifle vs. handgun and very little about handgun calibers themselves. He only states that a bigger handgun caliber might give someone a slightly better chance of damaging something important. Otherwise, the effectiveness of a 9mm or .45ACP are roughly the same and just as ineffective if nothing important is damaged. He also made the same point with rifle rounds when comparing the 5.56 vs. the 7.62.

True... but I still enjoy a caliber war.

I didn't draw any firm conclusions about which caliber is "best" but did confirm my feeling that whatever caliber one may chose, shot placement is key. That's easier to say and believe than to do, in what is often a very fast moving unpredictable situation.

baldeagle wrote: I take exception to this on two grounds. First of all, as I pointed out earlier the doctor got the 6 out of 7 number from CDC statistics for all gunshot victims across the US for one year. If you want to argue with that, then I don't know what to say. Do you really think the CDC is lying?

Second, to make a blanket statement like "Trust me, if somebody puts a +P+ round through at attacker's chest and/or head, he's going down, and for good" flies in the face of the very video that we're discussing, where the doctor showed a patient who was shot COM with a .45 and survived. Representative Giffords was shot in the head, and she's walking around, living proof that your statement isn't always true.

I really don't want to start a back and forth debate here, but it would be helpful if you would at least read a post before you spit on it.

Did I say the CDC is lying? No, I'm just clarifying what those statistics mean. It's a survival rate for ALL gunshot victims, which includes those who shoot themselves in the foot. It's not like if you shoot somebody through the ears with a .500 Nitro Express, he has a 6/7 chance of surviving.

Same applies for the other statement. I didn't say COM, I said chest or head. Yes, Giffords survived a 9mm through the head, but she was bent over at the time - the round entered the top of her head and came out the back, just clipping part of the brain. She wasn't exactly shot between the eyes.

And yes, if I put a potent expanding round through your chest (i.e., heart) or through your head (i.e. in the forehead and out the back), you ARE going down. For good.

And yes, if you get immediate medical attention, you have a greater chance of surviving (if your head isn't blown off) than if you don't. Wow, whoever said that must be a real genius.

My whole purpose in these statements is to simply point out that saying "6 out of 7 gunshot victims survive" is so broad and global, it's really meaningless.

IDK, but it seems that when you start throwing out certain bits of data the conclusions that are subsequently drawn are inherently biased.

Maybe I am an anomoly - I have been called worse. I have not read all 5 pages of this thread; but the first few comments brought to mind this thought: I do not want to kill anyone - my career is helping to save lives - I will stop a threat to me or mine; if they die in the process, that is on them. If it takes one shot or a full magazine to stop them, that is irrelevant. Stopping them is my goal, not ensuring they do not survive. JMPHO, YMMV.

Ruark wrote:

baldeagle wrote: I take exception to this on two grounds. First of all, as I pointed out earlier the doctor got the 6 out of 7 number from CDC statistics for all gunshot victims across the US for one year. If you want to argue with that, then I don't know what to say. Do you really think the CDC is lying?

Second, to make a blanket statement like "Trust me, if somebody puts a +P+ round through at attacker's chest and/or head, he's going down, and for good" flies in the face of the very video that we're discussing, where the doctor showed a patient who was shot COM with a .45 and survived. Representative Giffords was shot in the head, and she's walking around, living proof that your statement isn't always true.

I really don't want to start a back and forth debate here, but it would be helpful if you would at least read a post before you spit on it.

Did I say the CDC is lying? No, I'm just clarifying what those statistics mean. It's a survival rate for ALL gunshot victims, which includes those who shoot themselves in the foot. It's not like if you shoot somebody through the ears with a .500 Nitro Express, he has a 6/7 chance of surviving.

I'm sorry, but that's plainly false. At about 1:25 in the tape the Dr. discusses accidental shootings. He puts up a slide that shows 17,215 unintentional shootings that result in 276 deaths. He then compares that to 3,000,000 motor vehicle injuries per year and says that gunshot cases should not be much of a problem for us. Then he points out that, however, people use guns to assault other people. At 1:42 on the tape he puts up a slide that shows firearm suicides in 2008 were 18,251 and assaults with a firearm that result in death were 12,209. Then he puts up a slide that shows assaults with firearms resulted in 56,626 injuries and 12,209 deaths for a total of 68,835 assaults in 2008. Those are the numbers which he referred to in his "6 of 7" survive statement. And that is the number that is relevant to a discussion of how survivable an assault might be when a CHL is involved in a gun fight.

Rather than "spit[ting]" on your post, I'm trying to hold you to account for the facts. You have insisted that these facts aren't relevant to the discussion.

Ruark wrote:Nor does it account for the accidental injuries and the misses that hit non-vital areas. Statistically, looking at ALL gunshot wounds, that 6 out of 7 might be true.

And this

Ruark wrote:it's really meaningless to make a blanket statement like "6 out of 7 people with gunshot wounds survive."

As I have now shown you twice, that is false. Please stop ignoring it and repeating your claims. You may believe whatever you want, but it's dangerous to mislead the readers of this forum with "facts" that simply aren't true.

Ruark wrote:Same applies for the other statement. I didn't say COM, I said chest or head. Yes, Giffords survived a 9mm through the head, but she was bent over at the time - the round entered the top of her head and came out the back, just clipping part of the brain. She wasn't exactly shot between the eyes.

And I pointed out that the Dr. showed a case of a person shot in the chest with a .45 who survived. And you never said, "right between the eyes". And even in that extreme case, there are people who survive. Here's a story of a Tampa, FL woman who survived being shot "right between the eyes" with a .44 magnum. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351472,00.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ruark wrote:And yes, if I put a potent expanding round through your chest (i.e., heart) or through your head (i.e. in the forehead and out the back), you ARE going down. For good.
Since you seem to like to change the parameters as soon as you're called out on them, here's a guy who was shot point blank in the forehead and survived. http://blog.pennlive.com/lvbreakingnews ... ing_s.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ruark wrote:And yes, if you get immediate medical attention, you have a greater chance of surviving (if your head isn't blown off) than if you don't. Wow, whoever said that must be a real genius.

My whole purpose in these statements is to simply point out that saying "6 out of 7 gunshot victims survive" is so broad and global, it's really meaningless.

Exactly. Your whole purpose is based upon a false statement and is in fact false. Readers need to know that.

The fact is that handguns are not the deadly killers that the media makes them out to be. That was the purpose of this video - to point that out.

People get shot all the time and survive what you seem to think are unsurvivable wounds. A CHL holder who defends themselves from an assault had better not rely on your advice or they may find themselves the ones in the morgue. Shoot for COM and continue shooting until the threat stops. NEVER assume that your one accurately placed shot will end the fight. Even a shot directly to the location of the heart can be deflected by bone and exit the body harmlessly. Even a shot between the eyes can, as I've just shown you, not take a person down. Even a point blank shot to the forehead.

Please, please stop misleading people.