"Analyzing data on hundreds of shootings in Boston from 2010 to 2014, Anthony Braga of Northeastern University and Philip J. Cook of Duke University found that on a bullet-per-bullet basis, shootings committed with a large-caliber firearm are much more likely to result in a fatality than those with a smaller-caliber gun.... “ 'Most gunshot victims and survivors were young minority men with prior court arraignments,' Braga and Cook found. 'Most attacks occurred in circumstances where gangs or drugs played an important role.'.... "They then found that all else being equal, a person shot with a medium-caliber weapon, such as a common 9mm handgun, were roughly 2.3 times as likely to die of their wounds than someone shot with a small-caliber gun. Large-caliber gunshots were even deadlier, resulting in odds of death 4.5 times that of small-caliber gunshots. " 'The implication,' they write, 'is that if the medium- and large-caliber guns had been replaced with small caliber (assuming everything else unchanged) the result would have been a 39.5% reduction in gun homicides' in Boston during the study period...." https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/07/27/actually-guns-do-kill-people-according-new-study Interesting. I can see a gun control law based on this study working. Criminals tend to be lazy and if they want to obtain a gun to shoot then they'll most likely take the path of least resistance. If it's easier to buy ammunition for a small caliber firearm than a large caliber one then many will start preferring to buy small caliber firearms.
sorry but controlling which ammo I can buy directly infringes upon my rights. So study all you want, in fact...who here needed a study to know higher cal ammo is more deadly? Raise your hands.
In other news, water is wet. This is why I use a .300 WSM for elk hunting instead of a .22-250. In a related story, the FBI is moving away from .40 S&W back to 9mm as the 9mm has been shown to be equally effective. You amaze me more and more with the stupid stuff you post.
OMG, who would have guessed that paintball guns at .68 caliber are the most deadly of all weapons! I wonder how much taxpayer dollars were wasted on a study of the obvious. Next, they should conduct a study on whether ice placed outside melts faster on a hot day than a cold day. Curiously, they apparently proved that the AR15's .223 is among the least lethal calibers for how small the bullet is. So if you want to buy a firearm least capable of killing someone, buy an AR15. Imagine how many more people would have died on Las Vegas if the shooter had been firing a .32. Hopefully, the military will see this an discontinue using 5.56/2.23 and .300 for sniper rifles. Really, they should be using at least .380 with no reason to have a barrel longer than 2 inches. Only an idiot would carry a rifle. Barrel length makes no difference according to the study nor does velocity. Anytime you read an anti-gun study it is clear they know NOTHING about firearms and instead decide the conclusion they want to reach and then create a study claiming to prove the result they wanted is accurate - when anyone who knows anything about firearms knows just how ignorant the study is.
I apparently mistakenly thought the barrel length of the firearm had something to do with a bullet's velocity. Apparently not according to the study.
Yeah, my AR pistol is so much more less lethal than my Shield. I should carry it to be nice to criminals.
I see. So, we develop an index of round/lethality and only allow guns shooting rounds below the acceptable lethality index to be used for self defense. Seems like the army did that once in the Philippines. Then there were those enlightened city councils that thought all police should carry .38 cal colt new service based pistols...any thing else was considered cruel to criminals. Poachers have long proven they can kill a deer with a .22, but I don’t know of any states that allow it, but gee anything more potent would be cruel, right?
That study was a complete waste of time. Is there really anyone who doesn’t know, for example, a .45 caliber is more deadly than a .22 caliber???
Then what is being acknowledged by these individuals is that they are looking at statistics which apply almost exclusively to criminal individuals engaged in criminal activities? They are not attempting to claim the results apply to law-abiding individuals engaged in legal activities? There is a reason such calibers have been quite common, and quite popular, since the civil war and even prior. Too many individuals were killed after shooting an aggressor with too small a caliber of bullet, and it proving not immediately sufficient to stop an attack, even if the wound was otherwise lethal. Meaning that it is ultimately guesswork and supposition, but with nothing that amounts to actual proof. When the subject comes to firearms, placement of a round delivered is of far greater importance than the caliber used when it comes to matters of lethality. Why is the .357 Magnum round considered a large caliber, when it has the exact same projectile weight and diameter as the .38 Special, which is considered a medium caliber? That particular matter aside, there is no legal way of restricting certain calibers of handgun ammunition based on their diameter alone. Even if it could be done, the fact such calibers are still on the market would mean they are still just as available to the criminal element as firearms themselves are.
The best takeaway from this article is that when the US military chose the M-16 as its new service rifle, they were deliberately choosing a weaker, less powerful round than the .308 or .30-06, commonly used now in hunting rifles.
Even more interesting is the fact that by their very nature Criminals have little to no respect for the legality of their criminal acts, thus any law could only ever impact the life and liberty of law-abiding citizens. Furthermore, you are right the criminal choices the path of least resistance in obtaining a firearm, its called the black market, it like a store for criminals, who wish to bypass the red tape of laws, and morality. So in the end at least the criminal has the comfort of knowing that his larger caliber black market gun is way better then his victims little gun, In fact hes 450% more deadly
Yeah, well, the service rifle is pretty far down the priority for weapons used to fight wars and kill the enemies. There is a reason that artillery is called the "King of Battle".
What do troops think of leaders who arm them with a rifle that has far less stopping power than the one used by the enemy? As I recall artillery is the Queen of battle. LBJ was one of the Kings that selected the ammunition for the M-16.
Research on the subject reveals the united states has a very long, very established history of constantly going back and forth on appropriate caliber sizes, dating back to the founding of the united states itself. The first domestically produced rifle used calibers far smaller than the military musket utilized by the nation of Britain. Larger calibers are generally regarded as more effective, especially when hollow point technology is questionable and expansion is not always guaranteed due to the forward cavity becoming clogged. However larger calibers generate greater recoil and are more difficult for less experienced individuals, and individuals of smaller stature, to become proficient with, thus motivating a switch to smaller calibers for greater proficiency. But then some high-profile incident arises and smaller calibers are deemed inadequate for failing to immediately stop a threat, and the older, larger calibers suddenly experience a resurgence in popularity once again. Then some time after the incident, the larger calibers are reevaluated, and there is a move to transition to smaller calibers once again due to proficiency issues, and the entire cycle repeats.
