Another JAMA study that has no merit

[color of law]

People Kill People. But the Bullets Seem to Matter. (Published 2019)

Handgun caliber has been getting bigger over recent decades, even as murder rates have fallen. New research suggests that if the guns had stayed the same, homicides would have declined even more.

www.nytimes.com

A study last year, published in JAMA Network Open, examined the type of weapon used in every fatal and nonfatal shooting in the city. It found that — regardless of the time of day, the number of wounds or the circumstances of the crime — the size of the bullet affected which gunshot victims lived and which ones died.

 

[eye95]

“Regardless” was not a very scientific word. I’d have to read the actual study and the methodology, but I think what they meant was, “Controlling for the time of day, the number of wounds, and the circumstances of the crime—the size of the bullet affected which gunshot victims lived and which ones died.” That particular conclusion would earn a big-fat “duh” from me.

Also, the article ignores the main reason we good guys would shoot: to stop the threat. Not to kill. Not to wound. To stop. And bigger calibers tend to stop far more effectively than smaller calibers. If the bad guy dies as a result of my shooting to stop, that’s on him, not me, although I will feel massive regret.

That bad guys carry big guns to do bad things should have zero negative impact on my Right to carry big guns to do regrettable, but necessary, good things.

One last thing: I have heard (I don’t know) that .22s can be more deadly than some larger calibers because of the bullet’s propensity to travel and nick things once inside the target, which can lead to a failure to stop—while still killing—the threat. Can anyone confirm or refute this potential myth?

Thanks for the article.

 

[Ghost1958]

“Regardless” was not a very scientific word. I’d have to read the actual study and the methodology, but I think what they meant was, “Controlling for the time of day, the number of wounds, and the circumstances of the crime—the size of the bullet affected which gunshot victims lived and which ones died.” That particular conclusion would earn a big-fat “duh” from me.

Also, the article ignores the main reason we good guys would shoot: to stop the threat. Not to kill. Not to wound. To stop. And bigger calibers tend to stop far more effectively than smaller calibers. If the bad guy dies as a result of my shooting to stop, that’s on him, not me, although I will feel massive regret.

That bad guys carry big guns to do bad things should have zero negative impact on my Right to carry big guns to do regrettable, but necessary, good things.

One last thing: I have heard (I don’t know) that .22s can be more deadly than some larger calibers because of the bullet’s propensity to travel and nick things once inside the target, which can lead to a failure to stop—while still killing—the threat. Can anyone confirm or refute this potential myth?

Thanks for the article.

A well placed 22 will drop a 1100 lb steer in its tracks. It'll do the same to a human.

That said. In a SD role most shots aren't perfectly placed. A human will likely die from a 22 wound to the abdomen or chest with no treatment. He may well break off the attack simply because he was shot.

But a determined attacker ,especially one that's been shot before , will have enough physical steam left to do some major damage before he expires.

 

[color of law]

“Regardless” was not a very scientific word. I’d have to read the actual study and the methodology, but I think what they meant was, “Controlling for the time of day, the number of wounds, and the circumstances of the crime—the size of the bullet affected which gunshot victims lived and which ones died.” That particular conclusion would earn a big-fat “duh” from me.

Click on the word "study" in the quote and you can read the JAMA study.

 

[eye95]

Thanks. I missed that link.

The study uses the word “regardless” once, and not in the context from the quote in the article. That particular bit of spin must be from the author of the “news” article.

Thanks again.

 

[solus]

well let's see about the 2018 study's validity, 5 years 221 victim deaths in Boston by 'criminals'. er wait a minute the study's body of text states, "...the final fatal shooting victim sample included 220 individuals..." ~ wonder which is viable?

hold on a moment...table data states...
200 male perps
182 black perps
26.4 average age
147 deaths from gang related activity
38 deaths from drug related activity
22 deaths from 'personal dispute' activity.
two main areas in Boston were Roxbury & Mattapan areas [darn easy to see caliber had nothing to do with these criminal deaths but being in a gang, being black, and in the wrong part of Boston certainly did!]
65 9mm caused deaths

oh ya 119 of the deaths had received multiple gun shots by the bad guy(s)

Study states:
1) In all cases the victim sustained 1 or more gunshot wounds in circumstances that the Boston Police Department deemed criminal. [LEs determined what cases were included through their classification process!]

2) The primary source of variation was the caliber of the firearm used to shoot the victim. {interesting the study did not interpolate where the victim was shot ?

3) body of text, let the lies, darn lies, and statistics crap sneaking in!
a. "Descriptive statistics were used to compare the characteristics of fatal and nonfatal criminal shootings with respect to the demographic characteristics of gunshot victims and survivors, the circumstances of the assault, and other variables. Multivariate binary and multinomial logistic regression models were used to estimate the relationship between a categorical outcome variable and a predictor variable, holding the influence of other variables constant."
b. "Based on a simulation using the logit equation, replacing the medium- and large-caliber guns with small-caliber guns would have reduced gun homicides by 39.5%"
c. "Missing data for caliber and wounds were analyzed using multivariate logistic regression to ascertain if missingness was systematic or as good as random" [sorry if data was missing they just plugged in logistic regression nonsense to make it right?]

4) WAIT FOR IT from the conclusion...."It is plausible that larger reductions would be associated with replacing all types of guns with knives or clubs."

hummm...nice of the NYT's to finally catch up with the "STUDY" but typical of garbage in bovine BS out!

much to do about nothing whatsoever.

PS ghost only 6 deaths caused by 22s

PPS: thanks CoL for posting that article...

 

[color of law]

Before I offer input I'm going to wait to see if this story gets posted again.