Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 5095229" data-attributes="member: 19675">As has been mentioned, accuracy isn't the issue I'm talking about.  When I'm talking about guns here, I'm talking about surviving multiple contemporaneous gunshots.  That issue doesn't change significantly over time in favor of the modern firearm.  In fact, with modern medicine, survival rates from gunshot injuries have risen.  Don't believe me?  Start looking at how many people died of complications from gunshot wounds from the Civil War on- where you have a combination of muskets, the beginnings of modern battlefield medicine and relatively reliable statistics- and you'll see the trend.  Modern medicine has done wonders in this area...mostly because of improvements in control of post-surgical infections that claimed the lives of huge numbers of wounded, but also in surgical techniques that turn formerly fatal wounds into survivable ones.And despite those improvements, that poor survival rate from multiple (3+, as stated by the trauma surgeon) GSWs was calculated using data from top-flight medical facilities. Away from those facilities, its probable that death from multiple GSWs is virtually assured, possibly indistinguishable from rates of death from earlier eras.Your point has more validity with bladed weapons, where the societal trend is to smaller and less inherently lethal blades, which fewer and fewer people carry, and with which fewer and fewer persons are actually trained to fight.Still, though, the Aussie study did include machete data...and still the firearms outperformed bladed weapons.(I recently tried to find data on machete attacks/fatalities exclusively, but instead of getting crime rates, I kept getting referred to terrorism reports, not crime statistics.)</blockquote>

Verification