karl@osu-eddie.UUCP (Karl Kleinpaste) (01/16/85)
Recently, there have been several articles discussing the relative
damage-causing potential of firearms versus knives. I wish to discuss the
aspect of the accuracy of the discussion.
The part of the discussion to which I object is when someone posts something
like, "handguns usually kill with one shot." This is nonsense; it ignores
the physics of firearms, as well as the biology of humans.
The physics: In point of fact, a firearm possesses exactly 2 advantages over
a knife. First, it can do damage from a distance; with a knife, you have to
get close enough to struggle, but with a firearm, you can hit someone from
across the room. Second, it has the advantage of the raw power of the
impact; a knife simply cannot achieve the 1200 m/sec muzzle velocity of some
firearms. These facts lead to the following conclusion about firearms versus
knives:
The reason that a firearm kills is the same that a knife kills: they destroy
tissue. The idea with both is to destroy enough tissue, or just the right
tissue, to cause the target to be incapable of supporting itself further.
The biology: Based on this, you have to do the same *type* of damage with
either weapon. The only way to make sure that you "kill with one shot" is
the same way to make sure that you "kill with one stab": you have to hit the
base of the brain, the carotid artery, or a temple. All other injuries cause
death very slowly, usually by bleeding to death. Even hitting the heart
won't make someone keel over, immediately dead. That myth is propagated by
the massive irresponsibility of film and tv-show makers, those same folk who
would like you to believe that every car that turns over is going to
explode. Gun battles in the street (think "John Wayne"; gads) where someone
gets hit in the chest and falls over dead are pure fiction, in more ways
than one.
A couple cases in point: I was out hunting with my father one time about 8
years ago. He found a deer which he intended to take. We were in good
position, less than 40 yards from the animal, and were hidden from its view.
My father took careful aim, and finally squeezed off a shot. The animal
shuddered from the impact...and then it ran. My father was furious with
himself, believing himself to have missed a "gift shot" and having only
wounded the animal. Now the two of us would have to track the animal over
possibly many miles to make sure we got that one animal; it is true cruelty
to only wound an animal, and then go after a different one.
We walked about a quarter mile, following its tracks (the ground was quite
dry, and the animal left clear tracks), and then found the animal dead in
the path. In looking the animal over, my father observed that he had hit the
animal exactly where he wanted to, in the chest, right where the heart
should be. In dressing the animal, we opened it up, and found that it had no
heart left. My father's shot had hit the animal at the perfect spot, taken
out the heart by bursting it with the bullet, but the animal was too alarmed
and too stupid to realize that, effectively, it was already dead. The only
things supporting it for its quarter-mile run were the oxygen remaining in
its blood at the time, and adrenalin.
Humans are much the same way. Destroying an organ in the chest, even the
heart, will not cause a person to stop instantly. He won't stop until he
bleeds to death (typical) or his heart stops, such as the case above with a
deer. The fact that the heart itself was hit was the only thing that made it
stop as quickly as it did, and still not instantly.
Also, you will recall that in the 1981 attack on President Reagan, James
Brady was hit. Mr Brady took a bullet in the forehead. Surgeons operated on
him for many hours, and removed a bullet which was lodged a full 2 inches
into the brain, that most vital of organs. Mr Brady is not fully recovered,
but he is hardly dead, and far from helpless. The one thing that seems truly
lost is his sense of smell, because the bullet passed through that part of
the brain dealing with that sense, and the tissue for it is gone.
My point is that you cannot claim that a firearm kills in one shot; you
can't claim that a firearm kills in 10 shots. All you can claim is that both
firearms and knives kill, and that firearms are more likely to kill. To
claim otherwise is inaccurate and counterproductive information.
So please: when posting on subjects like this, make sure that your
information comes from a reliable source, or that you are personally
experienced. This sort of non-information about killing with one shot makes
no friends among those of us who *are* experienced.
--
Karl Kleinpaste @ Bell Labs, Columbus 614/860-5107 +==-> cbrma!kk
@ Ohio State University 614/422-0915 osu-eddie!karl