Data Shows Percent of Fatalities in People Hit by Gunfire: Highly Variable, by City

AmmoLand ^ | 11 September, 2021 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

Rate of Male Firearms Injury

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- This writer has been interested in the percent of fatalities of people who are deliberately shot, for decades. It is not an easy number to quantify.  The inverse of that number is the percent of those shot who survive.

According to Battle Casualties and Medical Statistics: U.S. Army Experience in the Korean War, 13.5% of troops shot with bullets in Korea, died. Most of those were from rifle and machine gun fire, hit with full metal jacketed bullets.

In 2014, this correspondent looked at numbers from Wisconsin (young, black, males) and Chicago. The Wisconsin numbers were from 2010, Chicago numbers were from 2013 and 2014.

In Wisconsin, in 2010, the number was 11.4% fatalities for young, black, males. Source: Lethality of shootings in Wisconsin, 2014, Ammoland,

In Chicago, for part of 2014, it was 14.8%. For  2013 it was 17.1 %. Those numbers looked reasonably similar to the casualty statistics for the Korean War.

A 2017 study reveals that is happenstance.

Information collected by Jeff Asher at fivethirtyeight.com shows a significant difference in the lethality of shootings per city.  Jeff did a good job in collecting data from different cities over several years.

Asher analyzed 14 cities to determine the percentage of shootings which resulted in death. These numbers were for 2016. In the cities Asher tabulated, the three highest were Baltimore Maryland, 29%; New Orleans, Louisiana, 27.9%; and Newark, New Jersey, at 25.3%. The three lowest cities were Boston, Massachusetts, at 15.3%; Charlotte, North Carolina, at 12.5%; and Cincinnati, Ohio, at 12.2%.

In the middle, were Milwaukee, Wisconsin at 17.6%, San Francisco, California, at 17.1%; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, at 16.8%.

[marktwain]

The percent of deliberate shootings which result in death varies significantly by city.

[vikingd00d]

>>the three highest were Baltimore Maryland, 29%; New Orleans, Louisiana, 27.9%; and Newark, New Jersey, at 25.3%. The three lowest cities were Boston, Massachusetts, at 15.3%; Charlotte, North Carolina, at 12.5%; and Cincinnati, Ohio, at 12.2%

This is clearly because the thugs in Baltimore have more practice. Thugs in Cincinnati simply need more range time.

[cyclotic]

The number probably correlates well to the presence of level 1 trauma centers

Without that the fatality rate would be far higher.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

The speculation is that it is tied more to the intention of the shooter than the availability of trauma care. (Head shot vs. center mass, e.g.) I recall reading that fatality rates from gunshot for U.S. troops in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam was approximately 20%. The other interesting statistic was that about one in 10,000 shots fired by U.S. troops in those conflicts resulted in an enemy casualty. There is a lot of suppression fire.

[EEGator]

Statistics are racist.

[WinMod70]

“Baltimore have more practice”

That could be but they really need to factor in speed limits and traffic congestion. Drive-by accuracy, in theory, should be much higher at lower speeds. You may say, but wait what about Boston. Well it’s colder and accuracy goes down as layers are added. Much easier to hit the 10 ring wearing one hoodie versus several.

[marktwain]

The highest fatality percentage occurs right next to one of the highest rated trauma centers in the nation, in Baltimore, MD. (As per the article)

[marktwain]

Statistics are racist.

So they say...

Along with facts, objective truth, reality, math, and merit.

When everything is racist, nothing is racist.

A sarcasm tag is sometimes helpful...

[T. P. Pole]

Wow, what is it about Arizona that has their shooting hospitalization per capita number for whites so high?

[EEGator]

I refuse when it’s that obvious.

[heartwood]

Newark, Baltimore and New Orleans all have Level 1 trauma centers.

You put them where you need them. The military sends surgeons there to get trauma practice.

[AZJeep]

The author theory is that of local culture.
I places like Cinci or Chicago, the gangs often just exchange fire because they love to shoot. Kind of real version of paintball! People get killed, but often just by accident.
In other places, they really shoot to kill.

[ThunderSleeps]

The number probably correlates well to the presence of level 1 trauma centers

Good point. I would also expect that the percentage of fatalities is less in cities that see a lot of gang violence as compared to more safe/secure cities. Here's why I'd expect that.

With lots of gangs and other criminal activity yes, you get lots of shootings. But they tend to be drive-by, or spray 'n pray type things by untrained thugs. Lots of shootings, but not terribly well-aimed or executed.

In other areas, when a shooting occurs it is more likely to be personal. Someone with a grudge, pushed too far, cheating spouse, defensive use, etc. Fewer shootings, but much more intentional, therefore somewhat more effective.

I don't know, just a thought. Be mildly interesting to research.

[cyclotic]

I live near Baltimore. There are other pathologies that affect that as well.

Pathetically understaffed police and fire, incredible culture of violence and drug abuse etc.

[lurk]

Distance would be the big factor. Handgun accuracy after 20 ft drops off sharply, as well as velocity.

[null and void]

Looking at the chart the solution is obvious.

Since the vast majority of gun shot people are Black or Hispanic, eliminating those demographics would in a single stroke eliminate 90% of the problem.

It’s Science!

Easy-peasy!

Do I really need a </Richter scale sarchasm tag> here?

[null and void]

Apparently so...

[momtothree]

I remember something in The Wire about Baltimore urban taking their time (with regards to shooting). Maybe it’s true...

[null and void]

It’s probably prudent to wait until the shooter has left the scene.

[marktwain]

Distance would be the big factor. Handgun accuracy after 20 ft drops off sharply, as well as velocity.

A common misconception.

The ability of most people to hit a man-sized target with a handgun drops off sharply. That is what you are likely observing. Most handguns are easily accurate enough to hit man sized targets at a hundred yards.

Yesterday, I was testing (admittedly a very accurate handgun, marketed as a competition model) at a hundred yards. It was not difficult to keep the shots on a half silhouette in 6 inch groups. The problem was me. I cannot see as well as I used to.

At 50 yards I got less than 2 inch groups.

With a common "snub nosed" revolver, when at the peak of my shooting career in college, I could hit beer cans, using a car door as a rest, about 50% of the time at 70 yards.

Velocity does not drop off enough (for most handgun calibers) to make a significant difference in lethality for at least a hundred yards.

A .22 from a handgun, with muzzle velocity at 1000 feet per second, has a velocity of 875 feet per second at 100 yards, for example.

You are seeing a real phenomena, but it is skill level you are observing, not an intrinsic quality of the hardware.