berettaprofessor
Member
I haven't seen this recent (July 2018) article discussed, but it is pertinent to a discussion often held here: How much gun do I need?
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2688536
To boil it down to the essence, the authors, Anthony Braga and Philip Cook (whom most of you are familiar with from their previous "studies"), looked at 367 cases of fatal or nonfatal shootings in Boston between 2010 and 2014. Divided into small caliber (22, 25, 32) medium caliber (38, 380, 9mm) or large (.357, 40, 44, 45, 10mm, and 7.62X39), they found that there was no difference on caliber category with number of wounds, wound location, or circumstances, but that medium caliber were 2.25X more likely to be fatal than small caliber, and large caliber 4.5X more fatal than small caliber. Buried in the text is also the point that indoor shootings were 2.6X more likely to result in fatality compared to outdoor shootings.
Their conclusion: "Firearms caliber was associated with the likelihood of death from
gunshot wounds in criminal assault. Shootings with larger-caliber handguns were more deadly but
no more sustained or accurate than shootings with smaller-caliber handguns. This conclusion is of
direct relevance to the design of gun policy."
The worrisome part is the last sentence of that paragraph; suggesting in no uncertain terms that gun policies leading to banning larger caliber weapons will result in less fatalities. They state clearly in their results section that if the public were limited to 22, 25, or 32 caliber weapons, gun homicides would decrease by 39.5%. They also make the statement in their concluding paragraphs that "It is plausible that larger reductions (in fatality rate) would be associated with replacing all types of guns with knives or clubs." Gee, ya think?
So, yes, at least one study suggests that bigger is better for projectile diameter; with the caveat that your goal is to kill, not just wound and deter.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2688536
To boil it down to the essence, the authors, Anthony Braga and Philip Cook (whom most of you are familiar with from their previous "studies"), looked at 367 cases of fatal or nonfatal shootings in Boston between 2010 and 2014. Divided into small caliber (22, 25, 32) medium caliber (38, 380, 9mm) or large (.357, 40, 44, 45, 10mm, and 7.62X39), they found that there was no difference on caliber category with number of wounds, wound location, or circumstances, but that medium caliber were 2.25X more likely to be fatal than small caliber, and large caliber 4.5X more fatal than small caliber. Buried in the text is also the point that indoor shootings were 2.6X more likely to result in fatality compared to outdoor shootings.
Their conclusion: "Firearms caliber was associated with the likelihood of death from
gunshot wounds in criminal assault. Shootings with larger-caliber handguns were more deadly but
no more sustained or accurate than shootings with smaller-caliber handguns. This conclusion is of
direct relevance to the design of gun policy."
The worrisome part is the last sentence of that paragraph; suggesting in no uncertain terms that gun policies leading to banning larger caliber weapons will result in less fatalities. They state clearly in their results section that if the public were limited to 22, 25, or 32 caliber weapons, gun homicides would decrease by 39.5%. They also make the statement in their concluding paragraphs that "It is plausible that larger reductions (in fatality rate) would be associated with replacing all types of guns with knives or clubs." Gee, ya think?
So, yes, at least one study suggests that bigger is better for projectile diameter; with the caveat that your goal is to kill, not just wound and deter.