Current Events > Another Surgeon explains how Assault Rifle wounds are way worse than Regular ..

(+) Yeah! (+)

handgun wounds.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/unfiltered-never-seen-many-injured-patients-high-velocity-weapons-120009420.html

Excerpt:

For Dr. Liao, the bodily damage caused by the high velocity weapon compared to those by a handgun were worlds apart. Different firearms cause different types of injury when they hit the body. What we see here in this country are really wounds from a handgun, and those create a small hole. An assault rifle type injury, the speed of the bullet creates the ability to penetrate the body and destroy tissue in a way that a handgun cannot.

According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the manufacturing of rifles has more than doubled in the past decade, with more than 4.7 million made and distributed in 2016. From the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., to the massacre at Sandy Hook elementary school, AR-15-style rifles have been used in many of the recent mass shootings. The high-speed bullets they project turn sideways upon impact, causing drastic bone and tissue damage very similar to what is seen in military combat zones.

If it hits a person in their abdomen, Dr. Liao continues, it could take out all of their intestines, the blood vessels in your kidney, and bones. And those people who survive these types of injuries have areas of tissue missing that we cant replace.

What you see in video games or television shows dont really give you the sense of magnitude of tissue destruction. Things are so broken that you dont recognize the body parts that theyre supposed to look like.

In the past, Dr. Liao had always wondered if the one thing shes missing in her trauma training is being deployed to a war zone. Now she finds that is no longer the case: Sadly, I dont have to be deployed to see these devastating high-velocity firearm injuries. Thats really tragic because America, it is thought of as the dreamland. The things that were seeing, the epidemic of mass shooting, shouldnt happen in this country.

Dr. Liao believes one solution lies with bystanders. After Sandy Hook, the American College of Surgeons and government agencies went back and looked at the children who died and the adults that died and how they died, and found that if a bystander could have slowed down or stopped the bleeding at the scene, some of those lives might have been saved. This led to the development of the Stop the Bleed initiative, which focuses on training civilians to stem the bleeding of gunshot victims.

When the victims from the Sutherland Springs shooting were brought into the hospital, she observed that many of them had tourniquets fastened on their arms and legs to stop the bleeding. That saved their lives, she says. Its important to develop a national trauma system where every region of the country could potentially be prepared for a devastating event such as Sandy Hook, Sutherland Springs, Las Vegas, because it will happen again: Its just a matter of when.

GG
---

Barenziah Boy Toy posted...

What you see in video games or television shows dont really give you the sense of magnitude of tissue destruction.

You sure this is a surgeon and not legendary Superhero Captain Obvious?
---

Video games don't even have gore anymore it is mostly blood splatters.
---

I mean, theres a lot of science surrounding the kinematics of bullet types and bullet velocities and the destruction they impart on tissues. Kind of silly to broad stroke it, particularly when one factor in damage is whether the bullet passed through your body or imparts ALL of its energy in you. Small calibers ricocheting in your skull, for instance.
---

You should see what a 12 gauge slug does, yet the left says "we're okay with shotguns".

Bull. This is just the same tired horsehit "those are too dangerous for civilians to have" argument that's intended to let them get their foot in the door to start banning everything.
---

its a rifle...it aint gonna be pretty.

that doctor doesn't know shit.
---

eggcorn posted...

that doctor doesn't know shit.

Besides years of experience fixing bullet wounds in little kids.
---

Why is she crying? Sorry sweetie, emotion need to be left out this discussion.
---

DifferentialEquation posted...

You should see what a 12 gauge slug does, yet the left says "we're okay with shotguns".

If you were trying to kill 100 ppl within one minute, which weapon would come even close to accomplishing that?
---

Barenziah Boy Toy posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

You should see what a 12 gauge slug does, yet the left says "we're okay with shotguns".

If you were trying to kill 100 ppl within one minute, which weapon would come even close to accomplishing that?

A truck.
---

Barenziah Boy Toy posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

You should see what a 12 gauge slug does, yet the left says "we're okay with shotguns".

If you were trying to kill 100 ppl within one minute, which weapon would come even close to accomplishing that?

A bomb.

I mean, Im largely in favor of gun control, but Im also of the belief that its impossible to maintain the safety that people want
---

Barenziah Boy Toy posted...

An assault rifle type injury, the speed of the bullet creates the ability to penetrate the body and destroy tissue in a way that a handgun cannot.

---

EnragedSlith posted...

A bomb.

Bombs are banned, are they not? And they're certainly not as accurate.
---

Warrior_Man posted...

A truck.

People can get out of the way of a truck. If trucks are so effective, then the US Army would be driving trucks at ISIS soldiers, not bullets.
---

assault rifles are banned
---

Barenziah Boy Toy posted...

EnragedSlith posted...

A bomb.

Bombs are banned, are they not? And they're certainly not as accurate.

Tell that to Oklahoma City.
---

Paragon21XX posted...

Tell that to Oklahoma City.

No one is saying that a ban on bombs will catch everyone. And now that ppl are aware of how much dmg a van full of fertilizer can do, policies have been adjusted to watch for them.
---

Barenziah Boy Toy posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

You should see what a 12 gauge slug does, yet the left says "we're okay with shotguns".

If you were trying to kill 100 ppl within one minute, which weapon would come even close to accomplishing that?

Ashotgun with 00 buckshot.
---

Barenziah Boy Toy posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

You should see what a 12 gauge slug does, yet the left says "we're okay with shotguns".

If you were trying to kill 100 ppl within one minute, which weapon would come even close to accomplishing that?

I would argue that the lethality of a shooter is going to depend heavily on circumstances other than firearm itself, such as the location, their proficiency, etc. At its time, the Vriginia Tech shooting was the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history where 32 people (I believe ) died and it was carried out with handguns.

But even going past that, how lethal of firearms should civilians be allowed to have. If the argument is "they shouldn't be able to shoot/kill so many people so quickly", then how many people should a civilain (with their firearm of choice) be capable of killing and in what amount of time?
---

"Assault rifle wounds?" So if I fire a single 5.56x45 round out of a bolt action hunting rifle, is it somehow going to inflict less damage than if it were fired out of a Class 3, fully automatic M-16?
---

Well an "Assault rifle" is assumed to have a higher rate of fire than a bolt action which presumably results in more damage if more rounds hit the target in the same time frame.
---

But it's talking about the damage of each individual bullet on contact. And are we talking about assault rifles, select fire weapons, or assault weapons, any weapon with certain cosmetic features?
---

"Assault rifle" is quite the clickbait attention seeking title.
---

r4X0r posted...

But it's talking about the damage of each individual bullet on contact.

Within the larger context of mass shootings and ease of use of a semi-automatic military rifle vs that of a bolt-action cannon.
---

Weapons are meant to do damage.
---

GregShmedley posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

I would argue that the lethality of a shooter is going to depend heavily on circumstances other than firearm itself, such as the location, their proficiency, etc. At its time, the Vriginia Tech shooting was the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history where 32 people (I believe ) died and it was carried out with handguns.

To add, the Congressional Baseball Shooting was done with a semi-automatic rifle chambered in 7.62x39, a larger round than 5.56x45 and yet all the victims lived.

The rounds were designed to wound. Kill one and the enemy is down one soldier. Injure one and the enemy is down one soldier plus the soldiers bringing him back to base for medical treatment.
---

Barenziah Boy Toy posted...

r4X0r posted...

But it's talking about the damage of each individual bullet on contact.

Within the larger context of mass shootings and ease of use of a semi-automatic military rifle vs that of a bolt-action cannon.

If it's only semi automatic it's not a military rifle. It's just another sporting rifle, which is just what the bolt action gun firing the same round is.
---

GregShmedley posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

I would argue that the lethality of a shooter is going to depend heavily on circumstances other than firearm itself, such as the location, their proficiency, etc. At its time, the Vriginia Tech shooting was the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history where 32 people (I believe ) died and it was carried out with handguns.

To add, the Congressional Baseball Shooting was done with a semi-automatic rifle chambered in 7.62x39, a larger round than 5.56x45 and yet all the victims lived.

This is irrelevant as it doesn't fit the narrative. Please understand
---

r4X0r posted...

It's just another sporting rifle, which is just what the bolt action gun firing the same round is.

Semi-auto vs Bolt-action is a world of difference to an average person. And the term 'sporting rifle' is basically useless as a moniker.
---

Barenziah Boy Toy posted...

r4X0r posted...

It's just another sporting rifle, which is just what the bolt action gun firing the same round is.

Semi-auto vs Bolt-action is a world of difference to an average person. And the term 'sporting rifle' is basically useless as a moniker.

Just like "assault rifle" is when a bolt action can qualify.
---

Looks like the 5.56 being designed to wound is just a myth due to its perceived ineffectiveness.

AssultTank posted...

r4X0r posted...

Barenziah Boy Toy posted...

r4X0r posted...

It's just another sporting rifle, which is just what the bolt action gun firing the same round is.

Semi-auto vs Bolt-action is a world of difference to an average person. And the term 'sporting rifle' is basically useless as a moniker.

Just like "assault rifle" is when a bolt action can qualify.

No, assault rifle is a select fire weapon, usually capable of burst fire, but also capable of automatic fire. It has an actual definition, which the TC did not use correctly in his shitty attempt at classifying a small game hunting rifle as an assault rifle.

There are some people that think cosmetic features make a gun an "Assault rifle" too.
---

DragonGirlYuki posted...

Looks like the 5.56 being designed to wound is just a myth due to its perceived ineffectiveness.

AssultTank posted...

r4X0r posted...

Barenziah Boy Toy posted...

r4X0r posted...

It's just another sporting rifle, which is just what the bolt action gun firing the same round is.

Semi-auto vs Bolt-action is a world of difference to an average person. And the term 'sporting rifle' is basically useless as a moniker.

Just like "assault rifle" is when a bolt action can qualify.

No, assault rifle is a select fire weapon, usually capable of burst fire, but also capable of automatic fire. It has an actual definition, which the TC did not use correctly in his shitty attempt at classifying a small game hunting rifle as an assault rifle.

There are some people that think cosmetic features make a gun an "Assault rifle" too.

Just as planned by hoplopho-...I mean gun control advocates.
---

AssultTank posted...

No, assault rifle is a select fire weapon, usually capable of burst fire, but also capable of automatic fire. It has an actual definition, which the TC did not use correctly in his shitty attempt at classifying a small game hunting rifle as an assault rifle.

Wrong.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/31/merriam-webster-online-dictionary-changes-definition-assault-rifle/

Go ahead, argue with the dictionary.

He said "sporting rifle" is useless as a term, and I said that so is "assault rifle" when a bolt action gun with a detachable mag, telescoping stock and a pistol grip can qualify as one. Stop trying to gunsplain. I know more than you.
---

The left is still beating this dead horse?
---

Barenziah Boy Toy posted...

Warrior_Man posted...

A truck.

People can get out of the way of a truck. If trucks are so effective, then the US Army would be driving trucks at ISIS soldiers, not bullets.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack
---

r4X0r posted...

AssultTank posted...

No, assault rifle is a select fire weapon, usually capable of burst fire, but also capable of automatic fire. It has an actual definition, which the TC did not use correctly in his shitty attempt at classifying a small game hunting rifle as an assault rifle.

Wrong.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/31/merriam-webster-online-dictionary-changes-definition-assault-rifle/

Go ahead, argue with the dictionary.

He said "sporting rifle" is useless as a term, and I said that so is "assault rifle" when a bolt action gun with a detachable mag, telescoping stock and a pistol grip can qualify as one. Stop trying to gunsplain. I know more than you.

Assault rifle used to have a proper definition dictated by the military as being any rifle utilizing intermediate-power cartridges and has selective fire (this completely excludes civilian versions of rifles that have only semi-automatic).

"Assault weapon" is the completely useless term because its meaning depends on which politician you ask, and its sole purpose is to sway public opinion into supporting their gun control efforts by slapping an intimidating label on a broad range of rifles.
---

I mean, if a Civil War broke out hand guns wouldn't be the ideal weapon to defend yourself
---

I like how the left fights hard against guns but ends up driving more people to purchase and defend guns. Nobody in their sane mind is going to get rid of such an important part of our constitution.

You'll have to fight a civil war to win this battle. But that would mean you have to go back on your principles and purchase guns. And THAT would mean that you acknowledge that guns in the hands of americans are effective against the government.

You people lost, but keep trying and crying.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Barenziah Boy Toy posted...

Warrior_Man posted...

A truck.

People can get out of the way of a truck. If trucks are so effective, then the US Army would be driving trucks at ISIS soldiers, not bullets.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack

And? You want me to link the 100x more mass shooting attacks?
---

DragonGirlYuki posted...

GregShmedley posted...

DifferentialEquation posted...

I would argue that the lethality of a shooter is going to depend heavily on circumstances other than firearm itself, such as the location, their proficiency, etc. At its time, the Vriginia Tech shooting was the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history where 32 people (I believe ) died and it was carried out with handguns.

To add, the Congressional Baseball Shooting was done with a semi-automatic rifle chambered in 7.62x39, a larger round than 5.56x45 and yet all the victims lived.

The rounds were designed to wound. Kill one and the enemy is down one soldier. Injure one and the enemy is down one soldier plus the soldiers bringing him back to base for medical treatment.

No it fucking wasn't. The rounds was designed to maintain supersonic ballistics at moderate ranges for consistent performance out to 500 yards while still maintaining a low recoil impulse to facilitate automatic fire--The AK-47 is closer in design philosophy and combat doctrine to a submachine gun than it is a rifle.

The 5.56 and 5.45 are essentially the same but with more emphasis on smaller size and faster velocity for improved logistics and better ballistics with flatter trajectories, designed for an infantry rifleman combat doctrine.
---

r4X0r posted...

AssultTank posted...

No, assault rifle is a select fire weapon, usually capable of burst fire, but also capable of automatic fire. It has an actual definition, which the TC did not use correctly in his shitty attempt at classifying a small game hunting rifle as an assault rifle.

Wrong.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/31/merriam-webster-online-dictionary-changes-definition-assault-rifle/

Go ahead, argue with the dictionary.

He said "sporting rifle" is useless as a term, and I said that so is "assault rifle" when a bolt action gun with a detachable mag, telescoping stock and a pistol grip can qualify as one. Stop trying to gunsplain. I know more than you.

Lol except the definition Merriam-Webster use specifically requires semi-auto which bolt-actions by definition are incapable of. So does the Assault Rifle ban.

For someone on such a tall soapbox, that is a pretty stupid thing to say.
---

I guess it's a good thing assault rifles have been banned since the '80's then.
---

Pogo_Marimo posted...

r4X0r posted...

AssultTank posted...

No, assault rifle is a select fire weapon, usually capable of burst fire, but also capable of automatic fire. It has an actual definition, which the TC did not use correctly in his shitty attempt at classifying a small game hunting rifle as an assault rifle.

Wrong.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/31/merriam-webster-online-dictionary-changes-definition-assault-rifle/

Go ahead, argue with the dictionary.

He said "sporting rifle" is useless as a term, and I said that so is "assault rifle" when a bolt action gun with a detachable mag, telescoping stock and a pistol grip can qualify as one. Stop trying to gunsplain. I know more than you.

Lol except the definition Merriam-Webster use specifically requires semi-auto which bolt-actions by definition are incapable of. So does the Assault Rifle ban.

For someone on such a tall soapbox, that is a pretty stupid thing to say.

Too bad the assault WEAPONS ban does NOT exclude bolt-action rifles, defining ALL semi-automatic weapons OR ANY weapons CAPABLE of accepting a ten-round magazine.

Mosin Nagant bolt-action rifles and WW2-era Garands fit this description. The Mosin Nagant is also explicitly named in the assault weapons ban.
---

darkjedilink posted...

Pogo_Marimo posted...

r4X0r posted...

AssultTank posted...

No, assault rifle is a select fire weapon, usually capable of burst fire, but also capable of automatic fire. It has an actual definition, which the TC did not use correctly in his shitty attempt at classifying a small game hunting rifle as an assault rifle.

Wrong.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/31/merriam-webster-online-dictionary-changes-definition-assault-rifle/

Go ahead, argue with the dictionary.

He said "sporting rifle" is useless as a term, and I said that so is "assault rifle" when a bolt action gun with a detachable mag, telescoping stock and a pistol grip can qualify as one. Stop trying to gunsplain. I know more than you.

Lol except the definition Merriam-Webster use specifically requires semi-auto which bolt-actions by definition are incapable of. So does the Assault Rifle ban.

For someone on such a tall soapbox, that is a pretty stupid thing to say.

Too bad the assault WEAPONS ban does NOT exclude bolt-action rifles, defining ALL semi-automatic weapons OR ANY weapons CAPABLE of accepting a ten-round magazine.

Mosin Nagant bolt-action rifles and WW2-era Garands fit this description. The Mosin Nagant is also explicitly named in the assault weapons ban.

But they just want "sensible" gun control!
---

Paragon21XX posted...

Assault rifle used to have a proper definition dictated by the military as being any rifle utilizing intermediate-power cartridges and has selective fire (this completely excludes civilian versions of rifles that have only semi-automatic).

"Assault weapon" is the completely useless term because its meaning depends on which politician you ask, and its sole purpose is to sway public opinion into supporting their gun control efforts by slapping an intimidating label on a broad range of rifles.

This.

These days an assault weapon is any magazine fed semi-automatic rifle with a pistol grip
---