Talk:Gunshot wound/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Gunshot wound. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

AdamSEOWorks (talk · contribs) has been paid by SEO Works on behalf of Patient.info. Their editing has included contributions to this article.

Not notable

This subject of this article is not particularly notable. There’s no legitimate need for every imaginable type of injury to have a dedicated article. Not in any useful encyclopedia anyway... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.72.63 (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard a more nonsensical suggestion in my entire life. It's so much of an important area of medicine that it is specifically important to doctors which work in hostile climates, and is more commonly referred to as Ballistic Trauma. You should really at least think what you would class as important, as although nobody relishes the concept of being shot this is still a very pertinent topic. J O R D A N ^[talk ] 17:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Gunshot injury is common enough that it should be mentioned at least somewhere... Even if the present set of sources on there aren't enough it should be easy enough to find some. It's not like writing up an article about a specific type of injury caused by some obscure machine that was made up one day in someone's basement. mike4ty4 08:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, what they said. Wikipedia is not a doctor, or a specifically medical encyclopedia, but WP:NOTE "is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." I believe that gunshot wounds (GSWs) should be an exception for the following reasons, for starters:

- a GSW includes at least two injuries (entry and internal) and has plenty of room for more (e.g. exit, fracture, neuro-), not to mention room for various conditions (e.g. catastrophic bleeding, DLOC, paralysis)

- you may consider this an opinion, but a GSW outside of warfare invariably involves negligence, aggression or both

- from the above, it follows that a majority of GSWs require medical aid, and a notable amount require police involvement, be it in the military or the civilian sphere 64.180.216.131 08:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This is bad

This is honestly one of the poorest articles that I have seen on Wikipedia. It is blatantly POV. I will create an account and do an edit or total rewrite if no one else is willing. Here are just a few of my issues.

“In some locations [gunshot injuries], are responsible for more deaths than motor vehicle accidents.” How is this at all relevant? You are comparing total deaths to accidents. For example, total deaths by gunshots includes suicides, but motor vehicles accidents do not take suicides into account. This “statistic” is flawed, misleading, and adds nothing to the article.

“It is important to emphasize that non-fatal gunshot wounds always have severe and long-lasting effects, even after the victim makes a successful recovery.”

This statement is simply false. Many gunshot wounds leave only one scar of comparable size to a pencil eraser, which I would hardly call a “severe effect”. The statement also contradicts itself, since a “successful recovery” would insinuate NO severe, long-lasting effects.

“Non-fatal gunshot wounds result in serious disability.”

Please see above.

“there is no correlation between gun ownership and suicide rates.”

Then why is it relevant to mention it in the article?

This article reads like it was either written by the Brady Campaign, or someone who has poor to zero knowledge on the subject.

It shouldn't really be considered as anything other than a comparative figure, and I only kept it in whilst I was editing because it was the only thing which was referenced correctly in the entire article, but will be removing it I guess. I agree with this notion, as generally even if it were an complementary figure it would require more detail to be of any use to begin with; "x is higher than z" isn't really that revealing when comparing deaths by sheer numbers alone. With regards to the rest of the article, you're correct -- why so many people have the impression that gunshot wounds the size of a tennis-ball is something I can only attribute to over-dramatisation of western action movies.

I will be expanding this article whenever I gain time, so if you do have any suggestions as to which parts require changes, please submit them as soon as possible. Regards, J O R D A N ^[talk ] 20:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Any way to survive a gunshot?

On TV it seems that if you get hit with a gunshot in any way, you're screwed. Is there anyway for you yourself to stop the bleeding if you are shot? Invisible NoiseΩ 05:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Go to the hospital. 99.141.71.125 (talk) 05:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't try to remove the bullet, it may be blocking severed arteries which will leak if it is removed. Apply pressure to the wound area to staunch as much bleeding as possible. If the victim shows symptoms of shock, initiate treatment for shock. Tethros (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect information regarding severity of bullet wounds

Some of the information in the Severity section falls under popular misconceptions of ballistic trauma. The most pertinent dealing with the size of the bullet and the severity of the wound. To quote James Fallows (1981):

Nearly a century before American troops were ordered into Vietnam, weapons designers, especially in Europe, had made a discovery in the science of "wound ballistics." The discovery was that a small, fast-traveling bullet often did a great deal more damage than a larger round when fired into human or (for the experiments) animal flesh. The explanation lay in physics: when the bullet passed from a medium of one density, such as air, into a medium of different density, the bullet became unstable and began to tumble. This was true for bullets fired through air into water, and it was equally true for bullets as they entered human flesh. What impeded the bullet from tumbling was its own weight and momentum; the lighter the bullet, the more rapidly and wildly it would tumble end-for-end in flesh.

I would suggest amending this article to fall in line with the science of wound ballistics. What do you guys think?

Tethros (talk) 07:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Quote: "The discovery was that a small, fast-traveling bullet often did a great deal more damage than a larger round when fired into human or (for the experiments) animal flesh. The explanation lay in physics: when the bullet passed from a medium of one density, such as air, into a medium of different density..."

Comment: The explanation lies in physics indeed -- the kinetic energy of an object equals to (mv^2)/2. As you can see, the factor speed is much more important for the energy a bullet possesses in mid-air. I don't understand why the change in the medium results in the bullet "becoming unstable and beginning to tumble". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.153.26 (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Bias in introduction

The stuff about a "public health" approach has nothing to do with ballistic trauma as such. What it is, is a leftover from an approach tried by the anti-gun lobby in the 90s. Define gun violence as an "epidemic" and maybe you could create laws to limit use and ownership of guns on that basis, and do an end-run around the constitutional issue. Needless to say, it didn't work, because while a bacteria or virus just does what it does, guns are only used as a part of a larger human agency. Since this is the case, the you can't go around the constitutional issue on health grounds; constitutionally, the agency is the entire point. In any event, the paragraph should be removed from the introduction because it has nothing to do with ballistic trauma. I'm not a supporter of the right to keep and bear arms, but it distresses me to see a potentially informative article vandalized for political reasons.24.81.25.127 (talk) 04:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

JFK

Maybe someone can add to the article a discuss the rifle bullet wounds to the head of President Kennedy? This is the perfect example, to help explain the subject, since many people have seen the frames in the Zapruder film. The president had already took a bullet to the neck. He clutched his neck; He was leaning to his left. We see an explosion of blood and brain splatter and a flap of the right side of his head. I dont intend to use the topic of ballistic trauma to argue the conspiracy theory. I want somebody to use this as an example for the technical discussion of ballistic trauma. What do we learn from Kennedy's assassination? Is the explosion of brain and skull on the right side of his head a result of the bullet exiting? Or is that trauma caused by the bullet's entry? And can we usually make an assumption that the debris from a shot to the head travel in the general direction that the bullet was traveling? Perhaps some answers on talk page can be given by someone? WOuld be most appreciated, regardless of whether such info is added to the article. Marc S. Dania Fl206.192.35.125 (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 7 March 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved to Gunshot wound. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 04:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Ballistic trauma → Gunshot wound – Wikipedia:Article titles/WP:COMMONNAME says to use the common name, which isn't necessarily the correct technical term. Outside of the operating room or the autopsy lab, the common term for this topic is not "ballistic trauma". It is something more like "gunshot injury". That was the article's name until it was moved with the explanation "A more correct approximation of the injury would be Ballistic Trauma. See Mahoney, P. F. (2004). Ballistic Trauma SpringerLink".[1] I believe the article should be moved back, unless an even better name can be found. Two possibilities are "gunshot wound" or "bullet wound", which are already listed as alternate terms. Felsic2 (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC) Felsic2 (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Support proposed move to Gunshot wound per WP:COMMONNAME; revert to March 5, 2008 title of Gunshot injury is acceptable too. --В²C ☎ 01:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Support per common name. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Support move to "bullet wound" as the most natural sounding name. Both gunshot and bullet wound are searched more than "ballistic trauma" according to Google Trends, which validates the common name argument. Laurdecl ^talk 09:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll also add that the wound itself is caused by a bullet, not the gunshot. Laurdecl ^talk 09:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that research. It appears to confirm that, of the three, "gunshot wound" is the most common term. While it may be logically inaccurate, that's not unusual with common terms. Felsic2 (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gunshot wound. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Solomon.lee.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Solomon.lee. Peer reviewers: JennDS.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)