The Number of Gunshot Wounds Does Not Predict Injury Severity and Mortality

[Cerberus]

This is a section of an article I happened across that I found particularly interesting:

The Number of Gunshot Wounds Does Not Predict Injury Severity and Mortality Cripps, et al, The American Surgeon 75:1

This is an analysis of 531 patients treated at an Oakland, CA hospital from 2004 to 2006. As their title indicates, these guys appear to have supported their null hypothesis; imagine their horror!

• Of those who arrived to the ER alive, only 13.2% went on to die.
• Mortality rate from single head shots was 50%, multiple hits was 38%
• The rate for a single GSW anywhere but the head was only 9%, multiple hits was 8%.
• The mortality rate for a hit to the thoracoabdominal cavity was 13.6%, for multiples 12.9%.
• The mortality rate for a hit to an extremity only was 1.5%, multiples 0%.
• Their overall mortality rate for a single hit anywhere was 16%, for somebody hit more than once 11%.

W.T.F?

The whole article is here:
http://www.shootingvoodoo.com/index....wounds_and_you

[cerop]

So you should cross your fingers that they empty an entire clip into you if it comes to that and increase your chances for survival??

But seriously, very interesting indeed.

[Lian]

i find that extremely difficult to believe.
any dinnerplate-area shot near the neck would kill a person?! the permanent cavity would trash all the major arteries and make you either bleed out or stroke out.

or maybe, they're cooking the numbers like our govt does with the AIDS statistics.
"oh no, he didnt die of aids..... he died from acute pneumonia"
"we understand, but did he have AIDS, that caused it as a complication/result?"
"oh no, AIDS statuses are confidential"

Just so with above numbers. "oh he didnt die of the gunshot, he just bled to death" , or "... had a stroke due to low blood pressure"


technicalities.

This is an analysis of 531 patients treated at an Oakland, CA hospital from 2004 to 2006

HA! for all we know it's a quiet area. and we dont know whether or not the 531 patients were actual gunshot victims, or TOTAL amount of patients.
imho, it's a rigged vote.

for example they only had 1 gunshot incident:
"oh no, only 0.18% of patients died of a gunshot"
that's if 1/531

or, 100% of gunshot patients died.
1/1

numbers can be twisted ANY way you want it to.

[BigT]

So you should cross your fingers that they empty an entire clip into you if it comes to that and increase your chances for survival??

But seriously, very interesting indeed.

Unless they're shooting a Garand or a Broomhandle Mauser chances are it will likley be a magazine not a clip. No cake for you :)

[cerop]

Unless they're shooting a Garand or a Broomhandle Mauser chances are it will likley be a magazine not a clip. No cake for you :)

It's fine..I prefer tarts...they go down easier ;-)

Already screwed up this post, so might as well impart some knowledge as well:



Back on topic...

[shooter]

Could be that the single shot cases were aimed better, thus inflicting more damage? The multiple shot recipient might have more wounds, but the shooter placed many bad shots (panicking, running, etc).

[cerop]

But if you look at the headshot statistic. Not a lot of footage to plant that bullet.... You would think that a single bullet to the head would already be more critical than 50% mortality rate. Well, I would...did...do...

[feroze]

The study only looks at the 531 patients who survived long enough to be taken to hospital, it might be a very different picture if the looked at all the gunshot patients. Also quality of medical care makes a very big difference in survival rates.

[BigT]

At a guess and only a guess. Many of those single shots may be victims of crime who werent expecting to get shot and who considered getting shot a fatal event.

The multiple shots may have been gunfights as opposed to shootings, pumped up people expecting violence.

This is just a guess and has no basis in science etc

---------- Post added at 11:19 ---------- Previous post was at 11:14 ----------

Please please please dont read this and think about only training to fire one shot.

Statistics are very little value without context.

[feroze]

But if you look at the headshot statistic. Not a lot of footage to plant that bullet.... You would think that a single bullet to the head would already be more critical than 50% mortality rate. Well, I would...did...do...

Humans are tough, the only sure 100% method of execution is decapitation, historically zero survivors thus far. And T is 100% correct, when the adrenaline is pumping or you drugged up its very difficult to stop him with one shot.