Gunshot Lethality: Intention of the Shooter Makes the Largest Difference

Gun Watch ^ | 11 June, 2016 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

When attempting to determine the statistical lethality of gunshot wounds, an important variable is often overlooked.  That is the intention of the shooter. It is not an easy variable to measure, but it is an overwhelming part of the dynamics of shooting situations.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been collecting data on firearms injuries and fatalities for since 2001.  The individual years data have warnings that the numbers may be too small to be reliable, but there are significant advantages to the data set when looking at the aggregate numbers for the fourteen year period.  All the data is collected under the same institutional frame work, so we can hope for internal consistency.  While the network of hospitals that report to the CDC only cover a part of the country, they generate significant numbers to work with.

There are three categories in the CDC WISQARS data that can shed light on the importance of intention on the lethality of gunshot wounds.  From cdc.gov:

Unintentional: This category refers to fatal and nonfatal injuries not deliberately inflicted, including any such injury described as an “accident,” regardless of whether inflicted by oneself or by another person. Injuries resulting in hospitalization subsequent to ED treatment or resulting in ED treatment only, and for which intent was not determined, are also included in this category as most such injuries were likely unintentional. (It should be noted that approximately 20% of nonfatal firearm-related injuries assigned to the “unintentional” category were cases with undetermined intent, based on a retrospective review of narratives describing the injury incidents. Cost estimates for nonfatal firearm-related injuries designated as “unintentional” should be interpreted with this in mind.)

Homicide/Assault: This category refers to fatal and nonfatal injuries due to acts of violence where physical force by one or more persons is used with the intent of causing harm, injury, or death to another person. Such injuries resulting in hospitalization subsequent to ED treatment or resulting in ED treatment only are reportable under the categories assault-other and assault-sexual, which include confirmed and suspected cases based on patient medical records.

Legal Intervention: This category refers to fatal and nonfatal injuries caused by police or other law enforcement agents in the course of official duties. For injury-related deaths this category includes state-sanctioned executions.

The least intentional category in the CDC database is labelled as "unintentional".  In this category, the CDC notes that 20% of the incidents are undetermined in terms of intent.  This category had one fifth the percentage of fatalities of assault/homicide cases, and a little more than one eighth the percentage of fatalities of legal interventions.

Unintentional shootings reported by the CDC from 2001 to 2014, 231,350. Total fatalities were 8,969. Lethality was 3.73%

The assault category is the next most intentional group.  The CDC does not differentiate between justifiable shootings and non-justifiable.  It is unlikely that a person shoots at someone with no intention of hurting them; but some shootings are to warn, to scare off, to facilitate escape, to create/enforce territorial boundaries for street gangs, or intentional woundings.

Assault/Homicide shootings reported by the CDC from 2001 to 2014,  872,436. Total fatalities were 164,089. Lethality was 18.8%.

It is not hard to understand the mechanism for increased lethality with increased intention to harm or kill.  A shooter has many choices.  If the intention is to intimidate or enforce territorial boundaries, distance and accuracy are not as important. If the intention is self defense, a person who is wounded and runs away or retreats serves as well as one who is killed. If the intention is to kill, then the choice may be to shoot more, to get closer, to deliver a coup de grace to a downed opponent or victim.

Only one person appears to have been legally executed by gunfire in the United States from 2001 to 2014.  That was Ronnie Lee Gardner, in 2010.  Legal executions are not statistically significant in shooting statistics.

In the legal intervention category, police are taught to aim for the center of mass in their training.  They are taught not to shoot at people who are not a deadly threat, so a high level of intentionality can be assigned to their actions.  They are taught not to aim for extremities or to shoot to "disable".  Center mass shots are more likely to be fatal than any other part of the body except for shots to the head. They are more likely to stop an attack than hits in the extremities. There is considerable speculation that a percentage of police shootings are "suicide by cop", where the person shot wants to die, and uses the police as a method of doing so.

People shot in legal intervention shootings reported by the CDC from 2001 to 2014, were 17,894. Total fatalities were 5,181.  Lethality was  29.0%

It may seem obvious that the most important part of shooting dynamics is the intention of the shooter.  These numbers from the CDC support that conclusion.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

[marktwain]

Intention is the most important factor in lethality. Consider the Orlando massacre. The intention to kill could not have been clearer. The shooter achieved near 50% lethality.

[Hodar]

When I go to the range, my intention is to place every round in the Bulls-eye; thus where the lead actually goes really doesn’t matter - right?

[ctdonath2]

As we keep saying:
SHOT PLACEMENT MATTERS

[pas]

These numbers are bogus. With exploding rounds from a gun that feels like a bazooka and sounds like a cannon, the lethality has to be near 100%. /s

[marktwain]

“When I go to the range, my intention is to place every round in the Bulls-eye; thus where the lead actually goes really doesn’t matter - right?”

I do not understand your point. Please elaborate.

[Albion Wilde]

bump

[ZULU]

What a mindless study!

[IYAS9YAS]

With exploding rounds from a gun that feels like a bazooka and sounds like a cannon, the lethality has to be near 100%. /s

Kuntzman never shot a Mosin-Nagant M-38 at dusk. It is a cannon.

[marktwain]

Are you saying it is obvious or irrelevant? I cannot tell from your post.

[wastoute]

The rifle my father gave me for deer hunting at 14 was an Enfield jungle carbine. I wish I still had it so I could take the silly nitwit author you reference shooting.

I shot an NRA high power match with it once as a lark. I was told not to ever bring that rifle back. That is how bad it was.

[DBrow]

Homicide/Assault is most likely a single shooter firing a few shots. Legal intervention can be four LEO emptying five 17 round mags. So yes, legal intervention is more lethal, for sure.

[Objective Scrutator]

How convenient of them to label “legal intervention” as only encompassing law enforcement. The numerous gun owners who have helped avert a crisis are conveniently ignored in this “study”.

[Hodar]

I do not understand your point. Please elaborate.

This goes to the whole "hate crime" thought process, which I find indefenceible. I do not care what the perp was thinking, or his "state of mind". I care about "what he did", and perhaps "why he did it" only if it is parmount to the case.

For example, I shot Mr. Smith in the head, because he was in my home, uninvited, at 4am after having forced open my patio door. Whether I was mad, scared, angry, happy, sad, depressed, jealous or frustrated about having to replace my patio door has no bearing at all. Mr. Smith was invading my home. If I am white and Mr. Smith is black, and someone alledges I don't like blacks - so what? Mr. Smith still broke into my home at 4am.

If Mr. Jones goes on a shooting spree and fires off 500 rounds at a crowd of people, yet only wings 1 person, I see this as a charge of attempted murder for everyone one in that building. The fact that he was a bad shot means nothing. For all we knew, he may have wanted to hit and kill with each round; but due to being a poor marksman, he missed. That does not detract from the criminal act; nor should the perceived "state of mind" nor "intent of the criminal".

There is no way you can prove that you know what I am thinking as I write this response. I could be admiring my truck, thinking of my new AR-15, admiring the shape of a girl next door, or preparing to kick my cat (assuming I had a cat that needed kicking, and that I would do such a think to my cat in any case). My point is that no one can read minds, let alone prove what someone else was thinking.

[marktwain]

“There is no way you can prove that you know what I am thinking as I write this response.”

Certainly true.

However, the left treats homicide as though it were simply a random natural event, with no one really responsible. It “just happened”. The gun “went off”.

In reality the intent of the shooter makes an enormous difference.

[Hodar]

In reality the intent of the shooter makes an enormous difference.

Generally, I think it's safe to assume that if a person goes into an establishment, and fires off muliple rounds at people, the intent was to kill as many peoplel as he had rounds. Whether he hit everyone or not, really is more of his testament of his skill, not his intent. He should be charged and treated for his actions, because you cannot prove his intent.

By firing at people, he is charged with 'x' charges of Attempted Murder. If the victims die, then it's Murder. If his "intent" was to simply scare and intimidate, I do not care. It's his actions that matter. I can prove actions, I cannot prove intent.

[Yo-Yo]

“When I go to the range, my intention is to place every round in the Bulls-eye; thus where the lead actually goes really doesn’t matter - right?”

I do not understand your point. Please elaborate.

I believe what Hodar was inferring is that shot placement is king.

This study is a classic correlation does not prove causation study.

"Legal intervention" shootings are probably more fatal because they are being performed by people who are trained to shoot for center of mass, and to continue to shoot until the threat ends. They also practice several times a year or more to refine these skills.

Most of the intentional (assault) shootings are most likely performed by untrained individuals who rarely if ever practice, so shots are more likely to be in non-lethal areas such as arms and legs.

[marktwain]

Of course, shot placement depends a great deal on intention. Skill is only part of the equation.

A person who does not intend to kill is unlikely to aim for the center of mass.

Do you really think differences in intention produce random results?

[Dutch Boy]

And that was just a .223 round. Imagine shooting a .50 BMG. You could put the sun out with a single shot.

[Yo-Yo]

Do you really think differences in intention produce random results?

Not sure I understand the question. It is my hypothesis that differences in intention are carried out by people with different skill sets, and it is the differences in skill sets that result in different lethal results.

For example, few law enforcement officers would be counted in the intentional assault category, and few gang bangers would be counted in the legal intervention category.

But I will take exception to the notion that somebody is able to "shoot to wound" under any stressful incident.

Many times when there is a shooting of a civilian by the police, there are always questions, posed by uninformed individuals, of why the police didn't just shoot the gun out of the perp's hand. Or why they didn't just shoot them in the leg.

No, if you deem the situation dire enough to require you to shoot, you aim for center of mass.

I suppose if you are a fan of the movie Pulp Fiction, then there does leave open the possibility that the shooter intentionally shot out the kneecap of a delinquent gambler, thereby chalking one up for intentional assault that was also intentionally not lethal.

I think that is more Hollywood than Hood.

[marktwain]

“I suppose if you are a fan of the movie Pulp Fiction”

I have never seen it. I think we are talking past each other. There are numerous levels of intention. If you are in a fight for your life, the motivation tends to be high; still, it matters if your intention is to escape, to take a suspect into custody, to protect others, and/or to kill.

An intention to kill with high motivation is more likely to result in deaths than an intention to scare off an intruder or to scare off rival gang members. A high motivation to kill will result in shooting the wounded, as happened with the recent Orlando mass killing.

It seems obvious to me that intention is very important in what percentage of shootings result in woundings instead of killings. I believe it is also true for shots that miss; but that is much harder to document.