People Kill People. But the Bullets Seem to Matter.

[DTOM CA!]

"Research suggests that one change could have lowered that number by 40 percent: smaller bullets."

The article basically says the bigger the bullet the more lethal it is ! ?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/27/upshot/deadly-bullets-guns.html

[Kyle1886]

So a 106 recoilless rifle would be a no-no?

Then logically, a machete might make a bigger cut than a paring knife.

Big hammer vs tack hammer, etc.

Brilliant!

Respectfully
Kyle

[mshill]

"Research suggests that one change could have lowered that number by 40 percent: smaller bullets."

The article basically says the bigger the bullet the more lethal it is ! ?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/27/upshot/deadly-bullets-guns.html

Link no worky....

But it is the NY Times so it is not a stretch to think they would publish something that is not news as breaking news.

[God Bless America]

"Research suggests that one change could have lowered that number by 40 percent: smaller bullets."

The article basically says the bigger the bullet the more lethal it is ! ?

You apparently have avoided all the 45 fanbois.

"Why do I carry a 45?"

1 "Because GOD HIMSELF ordained it."
2 "Because JMB ordained it."
3 "There is no difference between 1 and 2."
4 "They don't make a 46." (Ignoring the 460 Rowland.)
5 "A 9mm may expand to 45, but a 45 will never shrink to 9mm."
6 "Because 45."
7 "Only a Commie would ask."

Etc.

[AlienHobo]

Their conclusions is flawed. .357 magnum and .38 special use the same size bullet, yet .357 magnum has more than double the leathality, according to their study.

[wpage]

Wait for the Wall Street Journal for real news...

Not some commier rag like the NYT

[pacrat]

4 "They don't make a 46." (Ignoring the 460 Rowland.)

Or the awesome 460 S&W Magnum. But all three are actually 45's.

[Python6357]

Well, they're just stating what we all knew already:
45 is better than 9...

[Brush Guard]

Well, they're just stating what we all knew already:
45 is better than 9...

Yep, this settles it.

[billofrights]

I posted this article yesterday.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1521756

[MJB]

Why did I click on that..... I knew the stupid was going to be deep

[Bigdog68]

I was able to click through to the actual article. Interesting points:

Sole basis was size of bullet - but ignored weight and length, just nominal width
In 5 years in Boston, only one rifle caliber shooting was included in the study, a 7.62x39, so that blows the AW threat
No consideration of shooter skill - petty criminals that don't practice buy cheapest gun, probably small caliber, and probably cant shoot so lots of misses.
Interesting that their sample was to compare all the homicide cases against a sample of 300 of the approximately 1,000 assault cases they recovered. Seemed like they could have reviewed all cases to actually see if there were differences between the sample and the population.
Their sole basis was apply the fatality rate of small calibers weapons with the fatality rate of large caliber weapons in cases where people died from large caliber weapons. So it is the same as saying swap the fatality rates of using chef knives with the fatality of butter knives, and low and behold you find the overall fatality rate could be lowered.

Also, love the NYT article, we all started buying bigger bullet guns in the 1970s. No one seemed to buy a 45ACP until they banned Saturday night specials and the military going to 9mm had no influence on purchasing patterns.

This is really bad reporting. No objectivity or examination of the facts at all.