A study titled “The Association of Firearm Caliber With Likelihood of Death From Gunshot Injury in Criminal Assaults” was released in mid-2018. I’ll cite the article at the end and link to it. Unfortunately, the study is often presented as a rebuttal to the slogan “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” This rebuttal is misplaced and likely led to many pro-gun people skipping over the study. The point of such a slogan is simply to say that guns are inanimate objects. They require a human to use them. The slogan, at least in my mind, was never meant to be anything more than that. For example, a veteran carpenter might say, “hammers don’t smash thumbs, careless carpenters do.” Then, a study comes out that says, “wait, whether the thumb is amputated or not depends on the size and weight of the hammer, so your slogan about carpenters is wrong!” Much head-scratching ensues.
A similar situation existed with alcohol during Prohibition and now exists with illegal drugs – they require demand and people before they can kill. The more deadly the drugs are, the more highly desired they are. For example, Fentanyl is incredibly dangerous (far more fatal than firearms), but the demand continues to outstrip the supply. In short, where there is demand, there will be supply regardless of legality or threat of horrific punishment. This rule is a universal rule governing human exchange, probably since the beginning of civilization. Obviously, with drugs, different complicating factors impact demand, such as addiction, compared to illegally possessing firearms. However, criminals using firearms are likely using them to protect the drug supply for this demand, which means criminal firearm violence and illegal drugs are intertwined in complex ways (similar to how alcohol, Prohibition, and gun violence were intertwined). To quote from the study (my emphasis): “Most gunshot victims and survivors were young minority men with prior court arraignments. Most attacks occurred in circumstances where gangs or drugs played an important role (according to BPD investigation results). Most were in outdoor locations in the disadvantaged Boston neighborhoods of Roxbury, Mattapan, and Dorchester.”
One aspect of the study is that power matters regarding guns. Power has several variables: velocity, muzzle energy, bullet weight, bullet construction, sectional density, diameter, and so forth. Say, for instance, you were about to be attacked by a rabid coyote. You had your choice of a Ruger 10/22 with a 50-round magazine, a 9mm with a 17-round magazine, a .45 Colt revolver with five rounds, or a 12-gauge shotgun with four rounds alternating between buckshot, slug, buckshot, and slug. Which would you pick? I know which one I’m choosing. The choice doesn’t change if your coyote is not four-legged with rabies but is instead of the armed 2-legged variety attempting to kill you.
The study is engaging in some respects:
- Indoor shootings are statistically significant for fatalities compared to outdoor shootings. I’m assuming that indoor versus outdoor is mainly a marker for distance. The closer the victim is to the offender, the more power and accuracy come into play.
- Because these are criminal assaults, I assume that the bullets are Full Metal Jackets (FMJs), which are common and inexpensive compared to sophisticated self-defense ammunition. In other words, they likely don’t represent the latest in bullet construction.
- The largest sample sizes are from small to medium calibers: “The most common caliber was 9 mm in both nonfatal shootings (50 of 184 [27.2%]) and gun homicides (65 of 183 [35.6%]).” This fact certainly makes sense, as the 9mm is an extremely popular cartridge (and still is today).
- The number of shots versus wounds (my emphasis): “The mean (SD) number of shots was higher in fatal shootings (6.11 [5.73]) than in nonfatal shootings (4.41 [3.98]). Homicide victims were more likely to have multiple gunshot wounds (119 of 183 [65.0%]) than were nonfatal shooting survivors (50 of 184 [27.2%]), and the mean (SD) number of gunshot wounds for homicide victims was correspondingly higher than the number for survivors (2.82 [2.76] vs 1.67 [1.41], respectively). A separate calculation found that the number of shots fired was statistically unrelated to caliber for both fatal and nonfatal cases […].”
The last item needs further reflection. We have more outdoor locations, criminals, and gangs or drugs involved. I think that explains the high number of rounds fired. Also, I don’t think there are any surprises that the number of times you are hit helps to determine whether you die. So let’s round the mean (SD) numbers a bit since you can’t shoot 6.11 times.
- Shots fired fatal: 6
- Shots fired nonfatal: 4
- Wounds fatal: 3
- Wounds nonfatal: 2
Essentially, you are looking at a 50 percent hit rate on the number of shots. What I found interesting is that typically 9mm firearms have higher-capacity magazines than your large caliber handguns. With many 9mm magazines, six is between one-third and one-half the magazine capacity. Note that Massachusetts has a magazine capacity law of 10 or fewer. Although criminals wouldn’t follow the law, their choice of magazines may be limited by what is readily available to them. What made me surprised? Well, I would have thought that small- to medium-caliber semi-auto handguns, which are well represented with the 25, 380, and 9mm, would have had many more rounds fired. This fact seems to indicate other factors, such as the victim finding cover or returning fire, are more of a factor than capacity. I also suspect that the number of rounds fired is higher for criminals (and outdoor settings) since the victim was likely ambushed; however, that is speculation on my part.
The study’s conclusion is based on their statistical analysis: “The implication 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 looking at the study, I am a little concerned about two things—first, the smaller sample size of the large-caliber guns. However, the study sponsor is the Bureau of Justice Statistics, who, based on my experience in dealing with them, are very experienced at what they do. If this were research done independently, I would probably contract out to a statistics firm and validate their statistics. Secondly, bullet construction is not a factor taken into account. I have to assume that criminals are using popular inexpensive rounds, but that is an assumption. Since FMJs are prevalent across all calibers, they would not necessarily be used in small- to medium-calibers only. In short, I don’t think they would change the statistics much, but it is a factor that should have been considered in this analysis.
What are the takeaways from this study for the ordinary civilian who uses a firearm for self-defense? First, it is essential to remember that this study captures criminal shootings that are likely gang or drug-related. This fact differs from what a Law-Abiding Citizen (LAC) will experience in a Defensive Gun Use (DGU) scenario. Here are some of the differences:
- LACs do not ambush people.
- LACs do not shoot a fleeing attacker unless their attacker is shooting back while running away.
- LACs do not walk up and shoot a downed attacker execution style.
Here are a few takeaways from the study for LACs, many of which are almost of the “sky is blue on a sunny day” variety to those familiar with firearms and, in particular, the hunting of game animals with firearms:
- The closer you are to your attacker, the more accurate you will be with your firearm.
- The closer you are to your attacker, the more powerful your ammunition will be.
- The more bullets hit your attacker, the more deadly it will be for your attacker.
- The larger the caliber you use, the more deadly it will be for your attacker.
- A cylinder or magazine capacity of over six rounds is not critical.
When I say “deadly,” I mean “more likely to stop the attacker.” As I pointed out in my book, most people shot with firearms do not die. A whole other study would have to be performed to understand which calibers are statistically significant to stop an attack without regard to whether the attacker perished. Of course, if an attacker dies on the spot, that is a stopped attack. However, because most attackers shot with a firearm do not die, going into shock likely accounts for most stopped attacks. Are there differences between caliber/bullet combinations more likely to induce shock than others? I do not know.
LACs probably have an advantage over criminals because they can choose better self-defense ammunition. The increased sophistication of self-defense ammunition has long been a lynchpin for fans of smaller caliber ammunition. The improvements in small- to medium-caliber self-defense ammunition are claimed to be as effective as larger-caliber ammunition. However, it is essential to remember that those improvements are also available in larger-caliber self-defense ammunition.
In sum, for a LAC considering a handgun for self-defense of their home or for concealed carry, a revolver with a capacity of six rounds seems just as fine for self-defense as a semi-auto pistol with a larger magazine capacity. Shoot the largest caliber handgun you can handle accurately using the best self-defense ammunition available.
Assuming this study is replicated, it calls into question self-defense product developments like the 38 Super Carry. Perhaps I should start saving for a Guncrafter No. 5 commander in 50 G.I. with 185-grain hollow points.
Citation:
Braga AA, Cook PJ. The Association of Firearm Caliber With Likelihood of Death From Gunshot Injury in Criminal Assaults. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1(3):e180833. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0833
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2688536