Lethality of handguns vs long guns

Eugene Volokh writes:

FYI, thought I'd mention that I have a couple of fairly detailed
items today about handgun bans, substitution effects, enforcement need
slippery slopes, rhetoric, and Mary McGrory (of the Washington Post). See
here and
here.

You argue that long guns are "much more lethal" than handguns because
their projectiles have much more kinetic energy. However, it is not
at all clear that lethality should be strongly related to kinetic
energy (for example, consider what happens when a bullet passes
completely through the victim).

It is surely better to look at empirical evidence on how serious the
different sorts of gunshot wounds are.

The only study I have found to cast light on this is [J of Trauma 38:2
p291-298]. The authors measured the cost of treatment for patients
hospitalized in a Los Angeles medical centre for different sorts of
firearm injuries. The mean cost for handgun injuries was $6,400, for
rifle injuries was $8,443 and for shotgun injuries was $3,385. Rifle
wounds are somewhat more serious than handgun wounds but not that
much, while shotgun wounds less so.

We should also consider the possibility that long guns might be more
(or less) likely to be fired or to hit. A study that sheds some light
here is by Kleck and McElrath [Social Forces 69:669-92] who did a
multivariate analysis on NCS and SHR data. The analysis implied that
whether the attacker was armed with a handgun or long gun made little
diference to the probability that the victim would end up dead. I
write "the analysis implied" rather than "they found" because Kleck,
who argues that substitution from hand guns to long guns would result
in more deaths, failed to notice this fact.

Tags

More like this

Matthew Yglesias and Mark Kleiman have both written about the Assault Weapons Ban. I agree with Yglesias that the ban doesn't make sense since it bans weapons by name rather than by some characteristic that makes them dangerous. I've criticized the ban in Australia on semi-automatic…
Peter Proctor wrote: An equivalent wound is ( by definition ) an equivalent wound . Absent LET effects, it doesn't matter much where it came from. Oh, so your statement was a tautology? By "equivalent", you meant of equivalent lethality? Hole, I meant an equivalent hole. Pretty simple…
Peter H. Proctor writes: > 2) The main factor was apparently the substitution of handguns for > long guns as home defense weapons. For penetrating trunchal > wounds, the mortality rate for handguns is 15-20 %, roughly the > same as for equivalent knife wounds. For (e.g) shotguns, the…
Point Blank, by Gary Kleck, pg 165, citing a study by Wilson and Sherman, 1961: "At least one medical study compared very similar sets of wounds ('all were penetrating wounds of the abdomen'), and found that the mortality rate in pistol wounds was 16.8%, while the rate was 14.3% for ice pick wounds…