In the trauma world we consided all gunshot wounds to be high velocity wounds. Its been stated previously that low caliber bullets can cause more damage because they aren’t through and through. This is quite true.
There is a slim chance that one might survive being shot in one eye, but I doubt that kind of luck would hold for two shots.
A pellet gun maybe, but nothing bigger.
> In the trauma world we consided all gunshot wounds to be high velocity wounds.
What the…? No they don’t. But to get back to the OP.
In my experience, by far the most common situation in which people have bullets damaging their eyes is suicide attempts. They try a variant of under the chin/in the mouth/gun to temple and aim too far anteriorly damaging their globes and/or their optic nerves, with minimal brain damage. These people are blind and generally feel like idiots but they can walk, talk (sort of), and stagger about just fine. This is perfectly realistic.
> if you are shot with a low-caliber handgun- say, a .22- could you survive
Yes. People regularly get shot with much larger bullets that cross the midline of their brain, and they make to the hospital with a beating heart.
> if only for a minute
Yes. Quite a bit longer than that, in fact.
> being shot in both eyes?
Sure, why not. Now there’s survive, and stagger around in a dramatic fashion. The former, no problem. If you get them to the hospital, they have a small, but non-trivial chance of walking out again. Stumbling around, talking, thinking, etc would be unusual, but that would make you “very lucky” as opposed to “miracle”. Bullets to the head aren’t nearly as lethal as most people seem to think.
In fact, if someone told me that a guy got shot in one eye (bullet passes through the lateral wall of the orbit, exits soft tissue at the side of the head, never enters cranium) and then in the other (bullet penetrates roof of the orbit, lodges in frontal lobe) and then got shot a bunch of other times (dropping a lung, injuring an extermity or two) and then proceeded to stagger about until he collapses in front of a horrified girlfriend, I wouldn’t be surprised at all.
He’s just lucky he wasn’t shot somewhere really lethal, like the shoulder or the butt.
You guys are both forgetting about the very serious consequences of hitting an arteriole in the brain. The arterial circle of Willis lies very close to the trajectory of any projectile entering the orbits of the eye. And don’t count on the paper-thin periorbital bones stopping much of anything, because these bones get blowout fractures fairly easy from low-energy encounters such as a well-aimed punch.
The chance of survival from 2 ocular gunshots delivered at a direct angle is highly, highly unlikely, although stranger things have happened.
Sorry for the slight hijack but, Michael wasn’t human? I thought he was a perfectly normal (physically) human who escaped from an asylum and decided the best way to enjoy his freedom was to terrorise others. If Michael wasn’t human what was he exactly?
Back on topic, humans can survive without a surprising amount of their brain. I remember seeing a picture on the internet of a black man who had suffered some sort of trauma and was missing the best part of 50% of his brain and surrounding skull. I can’t find the picture now despite searching so you will have to take my word for it, unless someone else knows the image I am talking about and can provide a link.
The enemy is swelling and edema
A blunt force tends to cause injury which swells with no room to swell causing even more damage from the pressure.
Putting random holes in your head is NOT somehow better, also bullets don’t just damage things in the direct path of the bullet. Bullets, like a stone trown into a pool of water create a kind of splash zone that displace surrounding tissues breifly as the bullet passes. That displacement does plenty of additional damage to those tissues and structures. In addition a hit to the skull tends to create at least some degree of bone shrapnel near the entry wound that will do some damage as well. This is also ignoring needs for surgical intervention and potential for infection.
I’ll take the same amount of blunt force to the head over a bullet any day. People whack their head on things pretty damn hard all the time and almost all of them walk away.
I am personally very interested in wheter or not many bullets really do “bounce around” inside bodies. Or are the more follwing a path of least resistance like sliding between two muscles or sliding along a bone rather than penetrating it. Is there really any solid non anecdotal evidence of this phenomenon beyond a single bounce off of a big solid bone like a scapula or pelvis.
Well, in the first one he is. Then they decided to make sequels, and he turns into the same thing Jason is from Friday 13th part 2 on- indestructible killer. They say in H2 that he’s like possessed with some demons or something. Then in 6 it’s this type of curse. In the course of the series, he survives:[ul]
[li]6 bullets and a backwards fall off a balcony[/li][li]Shot in both eyes and a fiery explosion![/li][li]Hit by truck; shot a ton of times into a grave[/li][li]Didn’t see 5[/li][li]All I know in 6 is that he’s injected with some stuff from some needles and is beaten unconscious?![/li][li]Hit with pointy side of ax; stabbed with pointy flag; stabbed many times with two knives, falls backwards off balcony AGAIN…[/li][li]A kung-fu fight with Busta Rhymes in which he’s kicked out of a window and hanged (would probably BREAK YOUR NECK!), cut with a chainsaw, hit with gardening tools, groin electrocuted, burned real bad this time- lives for another sequel $$$$![/li][/ul]
I seem to recall seeing that on “Ripleys” several years ago. I think the boy was about 18 when he was shot. It was pretty amazing. The doctors made a silicone replacement for the portion of brain that was missing, stretched the skin with a glorified balloon and popped it in. Apart from some scarring, you’d never guess it’s not all normal skull. I believe he’d been shot with a Magnum.
Actually, mostly no.
That’s a common near-myth. It’s not quite a myth, in that if you hit a fairly firm and solid organ, such a kidney or the liver, with a bullet of sufficiently high energy, you might stretch the organ beyond it’s elastic limit, causing a rupture, with predictably nasty results. Maybe. But probably not. The two primary mechanisms of lethality in non-CNS bullet wounds are blood loss and shock (medical shock - not the hydrostatic variety!). Sometimes neurological reactions to the severe trauma can also cause what is effectively “instant death” - The nervous system simply seizes up and/or ceases to function. That requires a heavy hit in someplace important, though - Basically a heart-lung or CNS hit.
Essentially, when a bullet hits a body, the bullet crushes and tears a wound cavity through bone, muscle, and other tissue. In so doing, the bullet will produce two kinds of wound channels - Permanent and temporary. Barring a CNS hit, it’s the size of the permanent wound channel that shows the most accurate correlation to fatality. Temporary wound channels are, by definition, temporary - They last milliseconds, and when that time has elapsed, the displaced tissue returns to its previous position, with maybe some extensive bruising, but otherwise intact. In its career, the bullet may (probably will) sever many blood vessels, which will proceed to bleed all over the place. Any bone fragments or fragmentation of the bullet will magnify the lethality of the mound, with each fragment creating their own wound channels. If the permanent wound is large/extensive enough, the blood pressure will drop so fast due to this bleeding that the victim’s circulatory system fails almost immediately. If the wound is in a less vital area, or if the bullet is of low enough energy that it produces a relatively small permanent wound channel, then the victim has some time to think about it. Some people go into fatal medical shock at this point, and essentially produce the same circulatory system collapse the larger or more critically-placed wound channels produce, with often fatal results. This is sometimes semi-facetiously referred to as ‘scaring oneself to death.’ Many other people, however, do not succumb to this shock, and quite handily survive massive bullet wound trauma, even when people around them are dropping to comparably less severe wounds.
The caveat to this is that a brain hit changes the rules - A sufficiently large temporary wound cavity in the brain may lead to fatal bruising. Mind you, it’s not the hydrostatic shock, so much, as the swelling caused by the bruising (I believe drachillix mentioned edema?) afterwards - And even this is not a guarantee. In some cases, they’ve literally opened up a victim’s skull, to allow room for the brain to swell, and had the victim later recover to a substantial degree.
Survival from any non-immediately fatal wound seems to be strongly based upon two factors - The proximity to competent medical care, and the victim’s attitude.
And please, don’t bring out Cecil’s report on the subject. It’s one of the very few cases where the Perfect Master got it substantially wrong.
Now, in the case posited by the OP, I see *very* little chance of a direct face-to-face shooting, as described, being survivable. Maybe with shotgun pellets of sufficiently small size, at some distance? Birdshot at ten yards, perhaps? OTOH, being shot in the eyes by low-energy bullets from an angle, even if off by no more than 15 or 20 degrees, may be quite plausibly survivable. Especially so, if the shooter is *above* the mid-line of the eyes, shooting slightly downward - There are relatively fewer vital skull structures in that direction.And, of course, after repeated previews and spell-checks, I still managed to screw it up…
This:
Should read:
…magnify the lethality of the wound…
This guy
Not only survived multiple close-range shots from a .22, he is quite possibly the most determined person ever.
Yup.
Shot placement counts, folks. 
I disagree, Traquilis.
I’ve heard this argument made befrore. Though there is a large amount of literature supporting both sides, it sounds a lot like the bumblebees-can’t-fly argument. I admit that damage caused by gunshots is a very complicated issue, given the projectile’s many variants (e.g. size, shape, point configuration, velocity and where and how it strikes among other things). But having seen seen enough small mellons, etc exploded by .22 LR shots, I tend to believe the shock waves through gellatious matter is fact, not a near-myth and more damaging than your argument holds. In your statement, “Mind you, it’s not the hydrostatic shock, so much, as the swelling caused by the bruising…”, it’s the ‘so much’ part that is at issue. Not to be insensitive, but hydro-static shock is what caused President Kennedy’s head to move back even though shot from behind. Like you, I don’t provide a cite, but I have read as many pro-hydrostatic articles as non. Personal experience (on non-living, largely gellatious objects) backs up the science of hydro-static shock to my mind.
It’s also true that shock from a .22 would probable not cause the brain to expand past it’s normal limits, however the hydrostatic ripples would probably not be pleasent and potentially damaging to neural connections.
Hoo boy, all this medical misinformation…
> You guys are both forgetting about the very serious consequences of hitting an arteriole in the brain. The arterial circle of Willis lies very close to the trajectory of any projectile entering the orbits of the eye.
What’s the most dangerous vessel to damage in your cranium? It’s not an arteriole. It’s not even an artery.
> And don’t count on the paper-thin periorbital bones stopping much of anything, because these bones get blowout fractures fairly easy from low-energy encounters such as a well-aimed punch.
Which wall of the orbit gets blown out when you sustain blunt force trauma to the orbit? How does that bone compare with the bone likely to be in the path of a bullet?
> I am personally very interested in wheter or not many bullets really do “bounce around” inside bodies.
Yes. They do. More often than not, in fact.
> Is there really any solid non anecdotal evidence of this phenomenon beyond a single bounce off of a big solid bone like a scapula or pelvis.
It is very well documented in both military and civilian trauma literature.
> It’s not quite a myth, in that if you hit a fairly firm and solid organ, such a kidney or the liver, with a bullet of sufficiently high energy, you might stretch the organ beyond it’s elastic limit, causing a rupture, with predictably nasty results. Maybe. But probably not.
The liver, spleen, and kidneys are all quite friable and will lacerate or fracture secondary to blunt as well penetrating trauma. High energy rounds can cause them to shatter. This is the rule, not the exception.
> Sometimes neurological reactions to the severe trauma can also cause what is effectively “instant death” - The nervous system simply seizes up and/or ceases to function.
What? Never heard of this. Which “neurological reactions” would these be, exactly?
> That requires a heavy hit in someplace important, though - Basically a heart-lung or CNS hit.
A “heavy hit” to the heart will kill someone for obvious reasons. I would be surprised to see someone die “instantly” from a wound to one lung. The CNS includes both the brain and the spine and while there is an entity known as neurogenic shock, I don’t think it means what you think it means.
> - Permanent and temporary. Barring a CNS hit, it’s the size of the permanent wound channel that shows the most accurate correlation to fatality.
This is ridiculous. First of all, no one cares about “the size of the permanent wound channel”. You care what was in the path of the bullet. And what the hell is the difference between a “permanent wound” and a “temporary wound”? Either the tissue is damaged, or it isn’t.
> If the permanent wound is large/extensive enough, the blood pressure will drop so fast due to this bleeding that the victim’s circulatory system fails almost immediately.
This is true.
> Some people go into fatal medical shock at this point, and essentially produce the same circulatory system collapse the larger or more critically-placed wound channels produce, with often fatal results.
Okay, this is true, but I don’t think you know what medical shock is.
> This is sometimes semi-facetiously referred to as ‘scaring oneself to death.’
By whom?
> Many other people, however, do not succumb to this shock, and quite handily survive massive bullet wound trauma, even when people around them are dropping to comparably less severe wounds.
Oh dear god, you seem to be implying that your mental state somehow will have some impact on whether you will survive major penetrating trauma. If I am incorrect, I apologize, but if that is what you are suggesting I am amazed and horrified.
> Survival from any non-immediately fatal wound seems to be strongly based upon two factors - The proximity to competent medical care, and the victim’s attitude.
The victim’s attitude? That’s the silliest thing I’ve heard in a long, long time. If you are bleeding from a major vessel, how is your attitude going to affect anything? You, like many people, seem to have some confusion about what the term shock implies. It has a very specific medical definition and it doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means.
> Especially so, if the shooter is above the mid-line of the eyes, shooting slightly downward - There are relatively fewer vital skull structures in that direction.
Really? Which vital structures are above the plane of the orbits vs below? Given the choice, I’d much rather have the bullet go up than down, not that either one is a great option.
Certainly, you might - A large number of people do. However, the weight of the scientific work on the subject is quite clear, and it all falls in Fackler’s camp.
Alright, so I’m trying to understand, are you saying hitting the arterial circle of Willis wouldn’t be a serious injury?
If you don’t know, I’m certainly not going to do your homework for you. :dubious:
The FBI Disagrees with you:
[sup]*[/sup] This is a website which present a department of justice report and is supported by citations. Its concern is handgun bullets about which the OP was concerned.
Then reign your horror in, this is also well documented:
So short term stopping power is related to psychological factors, long term survival is not addressed in the given reference.
-DF
The FBI Disagrees with you:
Bolding was mine.
[sup]*[/sup] This is a website which present a department of justice report and is supported by citations. Its concern is handgun bullets about which the OP was concerned.
Then reign your horror in, this is also well documented:
So short term stopping power is related to psychological factors, long term survival is not addressed in the given reference.
-DF
I swore I submitted only once!
Grrr.
-DF
Are you serious? That is the most amazing thing I have ever seen!
> Alright, so I’m trying to understand, are you saying hitting the arterial circle of Willis wouldn’t be a serious injury?
Oh, it is. Just like all gunshots to the head are. However, I’d be more worried about the carotids as they traverse the cavernous sinus (problem, but not that big a deal) or violation of a dural sinus (patient is royally screwed). Also, peripheral branches of the ACA and MCA are the most common sites of vascular injury with a penetrating brain injury, followed by the carotid. The actual circle of Willis itself is way down there.
Actually, check that. Mostly I’m worried about his (presumed) massive brain injury. Vascular injury with penetrating head trauma is pretty uncommon (about 10%). Moreover, when it does occur, it generally results in delayed morbidity and mortality days after the injury due to rebleeding aneurysm.
> If you don’t know, I’m certainly not going to do your homework for you.
Obviously I know. Yes, the orbit is prone to blowout fractures, but they usually involve the floor and medial wall of the orbit. The bone between the orbit and the cranium is a bit thicker, and is not generally involved in blowout fractures.
But there’s more! The real weak area isn’t the orbits, it’s the NOE complex between them. Even better, the bridge of the nose is about level with the brainstem, which is what you really care about. So given the option, between the eyes is the way to go. In fact, most penetrating brain injuries do occur through the skull base or the pterion. However, strength of bone is but one factor of many that contribute to this phenomenon.
The real questions is, did you know? And should you, before posting in reply to someone’s General Question?
>> And what the hell is the difference between a “permanent wound” and a “temporary wound”? Either the tissue is damaged, or it isn’t.
> Of the remaining factors,** temporary cavity** is frequently, and grossly, overrated as a wounding factor when analyzing wounds. Nevertheless, historically it has been used in some cases as the primary means of assessing the wounding effectiveness of bullets.
As I discussed, cavitation can be a useful concept when dealing with solid organ trauma, such as spleen and liver, as opposed to trauma to elastic tissue, such as bowel and lung.
My issue was with “permanant wound” vs “temporary wound”. Wound has a specific meaning in trauma surgery. A “temporary cavity” makes sense.
However, I’m not sure why you chose to highlight “temporary cavity is frequently, and grossly, overrated”. That would support the argument (which many ascribe to, incidentally) that the concept of cavitation is not useful when evaluating trauma. In fact, if you actually read and understood the article you cited, you would have realized that:
a) There was no data supporting that article.
b) That’s because it wasn’t, in fact, an article at all. It was an editorial.
c) He was arguing against the use of the temporary cavity concept.
d) His editorial is 25 years old, and there has been quite a lot written since then.
e) When people debate this issue, they are often, though not invariably, debating it in the context of musculoskeletal injury, not solid organ.
f) This still still isn’t a settled issue.
g) It’s not purely academic. Some believe in aggressive debridement of a high energy wound. Others believe you should be more conservative. In other words, some people would say “We have to cut open this guys leg so we can evaluate that muscle, even though it wasn’t directly in the path of the bullet, because he was hit by a rifle instead of a pistol,” while other people say “The temporary cavity concept is bunk, and the tissue outside the direct path of the bullet is probabaly okay. Let’s just leave his leg the hell alone.”
h) All of this must take into account the fact that a lot of the orginal work was done by military authors, and to this day it is a lot of the older men with military experience who advocate the aggresive approach, and are big believers in the temporary cavity concept. I think it’s fair to say the conservative approach is gaining ground these days, and as it does so, the importance of the temporary cavity concept is diminishing.
i) Doing a Google search and citing a website are poor form when there is a wealth of published literature on the topic.
You’d actually have a realized a lot more letters worth of stuff, including some reasons for why h might be true which I think are quite interesting, but I’m getting tired of typing.
>>> Many other people, however, do not succumb to this shock, and quite handily survive massive bullet wound trauma, even when people around them are dropping to comparably less severe wounds.
>> Oh dear god, you seem to be implying that your mental state somehow will have some impact on whether you will **survive **major penetrating trauma. If I am incorrect, I apologize, but if that is what you are suggesting I am amazed and horrified.
<snip interesting cite>
> So short term stopping power is related to psychological factors
Sure, I buy that. In fact, I don’t think it was ever really raised as an issue. That wasn’t what I had a problem with.
> long term survival is not addressed in the given reference.
That was. Still horrified.