Why not more casualties in shooting sprees?

[Crafter_Man]

Groman:

If a researcher wants to analyze the murder rate over the time span of many decades, they *must * take into account the fact that advances in medical technology have *decreased * the murder rate over time. This is also true for fatality statistics in combat… many (most?) of the soldiers who died in WWII, for example, would have lived if they had access to today’s medical technology.

A book I just finished reading - On Combat by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman - talked quite a bit about this phenomenon. He said that, if a researcher wants to analyze violence in society over time, they must look at the ***attempted ** * murder rate, and not the murder rate itself.

[groman]

@Crafter_Man

A book I just finished reading - On Combat by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman - talked quite a bit about this phenomenon. He said that, if a researcher wants to analyze violence in society over time, they must look at the ***attempted ** * murder rate, and not the murder rate itself.

I was under the impression that while most professionals are getting better at their jobs (especially doctors) due to advances in their fields, the average person is getting worse and worse at everything and anything that isn’t their field. I don’t have a cite for that, but how does that book propose separating improvements in surgical techniques from the general decrease in the average person’s ability to successfully murder somebody? Maybe people are just worse shots now?

That’s why I’m asking about specific techniques. I know less and less people are dying from secondary open wound infections and the number of people who bleed to death is reduced due to advanced precision surgical techniques, but is it that we can do for people who get shot in the intestines, heart, brain, liver or stomach?
What medical advance allows us to repair massive internal damage done by a tumbling bullet inside somebodies abdominal cavity that is spreading intestinal contents everywhere?

I mean, I perfectly understand that getting shot in the shoulder or thigh or even lung is a much more survivable thing now than it was 60 years ago. However, do we have any stats showing that getting shot in the gut is statistically significantly more survivable?

[Anaamika]

@groman

I am very disinclined to believe that. Do we have another cite for the number of rounds fired?

Another cite for the Port Arthur murders:

Port Arthur
It doesn’t have the exact number of rounds, but it does seem to imply he was pretty darn accurate:

In a period of just over nineteen hours, Martin Bryant, a man described by locals as being “a quiet lad and a bit of a loner,” had killed thirty-five men, women and children and wounded another eighteen making him the most notorious spree killer of all time.

Before anyone had realized what was happening, he unzipped the larger bag and produced an AR15 semi-automatic rifle and shot the Asian man, Moh Yee Ng, in the neck, killing him instantly. Swinging the rifle from the hip he pointed it towards Soo Leng Chung, the man’s companion, and shot her through the head. Turning his attention back to the first group he lifted the rifle to his shoulder and fired a shot at Mick Sargent, grazing his scalp and knocking him to the floor. Before Mick could shout a warning, the gunman fired a fourth shot that hit Mick’s girlfriend in the back of the head. In a matter of seconds, the young man had claimed three victims.

Walking towards the front entrance of the café, the gunman fired methodically, shooting left and right as the terrified crowd scrambled for cover. Fifteen seconds later, a total of twenty people lay dead with fifteen more wounded, many of them seriously.

[Anaamika]

More:

Pulling to a stop, he fired two quick shots killing the woman and the child she was carrying. When the older child ran away to take refuge behind a tree, the gunman followed her and killed her with one shot. Returning to his vehicle, the gunman then drove a further two hundred yards towards the entrance gate where a gold coloured BMW was parked. Three shots were fired in rapid succession and the car’s three male occupants lay dead.

The gunman then slammed the lid and returned to the front of the car and fired two shots through the driver’s window killing the young woman instantly.

I’ll keep looking, this is interesting.

[diggleblop]

Because once shots start ringing out, people start to scatter. Hitting moving targets with an automatic gun is rather difficult. It would take someone who is trained in sniping (such as the tower in Texas) to nail moving targets with great accuracy, unless the shooter is close to his targets and is a relatively good aim.

[Anaamika]

Wow, and then I found this website:

Lies Exposed Part I

Martin Bryant, an intellectually impaired registered invalid with no training in the use of high powered assault weapons, could not under any circumstances have achieved or maintained the incredibly high and consistent killed-to-injured ratio and kill-rate which were bench marks of the Port Arthur massacre. Whoever was on the trigger that fateful day demonstrated professional skills equal to some of the best special forces shooters in the world. His critical error lay in killing too many people too quickly while injuring far too few, thereby exposing himself for what he was: a highly trained combat shooter probably ranked among the top twenty such specialists in the western world.

:rolleyes: but even they note that the kill rate was high.