It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What I Saw Treating the Victims From Parkland Should Change the Debate on Guns- Heather Sheer-AP

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 01:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Asktheanimals

He was very much more fond of his stoner or behind a barret...

People like the one in this article don't even surprise me anymore...I hear this sort of stuff from the least likely people more and more these days. At 20yrds a 5.56 or .223 will cut through you like a hot knife through butter. It doesn't cause a huge cavity or big holes...its simply going to fast.




posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 02:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS

That never was the answer! The answer is to limit access to these schools to only entrances that have metal detectors and armed security guards inspecting bags and doing pat downs. How much failure is it to have a kid wander about a school campus with an AR-15 in a bag and go un-noticed, unchallenged?


It's more of a failure, for the whole of your country, that the kid could get his hands on an AR15 in the first place.

Once again, I sit here In Scotland wondering why so many of my American cousins don't see how easy this is. Here in the UK we have a lot of kids with mental health issues. You don't see them walking into schools and shooting everything up.

Let me ask you, why do you think that is?



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 02:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: studio500

As a doctor, I feel I have a duty to inform the public of what I have learned as I have observed these wounds and cared for these patients.

It’s clear to me that AR-15 or other high-velocity weapons, especially when outfitted with a high-capacity magazine, have no place in a civilian’s gun cabinet. I have friends who own AR-15 rifles; they enjoy shooting them at target practice for sport, and fervently defend their right to own them. But I cannot accept that their right to enjoy their hobby supersedes my right to send my own children to school, to a movie theater, or to a concert and to know that they are safe.
Can the answer really be to subject our school children to active shooter drills—to learn to hide under desks, turn off the lights, lock the door and be silent—instead of addressing the root cause of the problem and passing legislation to take AR-15-style weapons out of the hands of civilians?


This topic relates to an article written by Heather Sheer for the associated press.

The article contains a surgeons account of treating patients with High Velocity Bullet Wounds, following some of the mass shootings that have recently occured in the US and how the type of weapon and ammunition used, has such a massive impact upon the victims chances of survival.

The article describes the shock at seeing the explosive damage caused by high velocity bullets fired from weapons such as the AR-15 compared to those injuries caused by handguns or similar weapons that fire low velocity bullets.

She describes what little chance if any there is for her to treat, let alone save the victims who have been hit by HV bullets and the true biological devastation that they witness relating to organ damage as the victim lies on the operating table. They see organs so badly damaged, including livers that resemble sledgehammered Melons , that no amount of surgery can repair. Ultimately these injuries almost guarantee patient death.

The article is a poignant reminder, not about Gun Control per se but about limiting the type of Gun and ammunition that is available to the public.

In her own words, she explains how the majority of people who receive handgun type or low velocity bullet injuries can be treated and many go on to make a full recovery. Sadly the outcome is very different for those on the receiving end of an AR-15 or similar weapon.

Please take time to read the full article if possible as it certainly provides insight from a surgeon/ emergency room perspective along with views on what action should be taken to reduce these deaths.

Atlan tic

As a non-US citizen, I would like to point out that I hold no personal view, for or against Gun Control but I am saddened by the loss of any life whatever the circumstances.


As I opened the CT scan last week to read the next case, I was baffled. The history simply read “gunshot wound.” I have been a radiologist in one of the busiest trauma centers in the nation for 13 years, and have diagnosed thousands of handgun injuries to the brain, lung, liver, spleen, bowel, and other vital organs. I thought that I knew all that I needed to know about gunshot wounds, but the specific pattern of injury on my computer screen was one that I had seen only once before.

In a typical handgun injury that I diagnose almost daily, a bullet leaves a laceration through an organ like the liver. To a radiologist, it appears as a linear, thin, grey bullet track through the organ. There may be bleeding and some bullet fragments.

I was looking at a CT scan of one of the victims of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, with extensive bleeding. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?




Routine handgun injuries leave entry and exit wounds and linear tracks through the victim's body that are roughly the size of the bullet.

If the bullet does not directly hit something crucial like the heart or the aorta, and they do not bleed to death before being transported to our care at a trauma center, chances are, we can save the victim.

The bullets fired by an AR-15 are different; they travel at higher velocity and are far more lethal. The damage they cause is a function of the energy they impart as they pass through the body. A typical AR-15 bullet leaves the barrel traveling almost three times faster than, and imparting more than three times the energy of, a typical 9mm bullet from a handgun. An AR-15 rifle outfitted with a magazine cartridge with 50 rounds allows many more lethal bullets to be delivered quickly without reloading.




With an AR-15, the shooter does not have to be particularly accurate. The victim does not have to be unlucky. If a victim takes a direct hit to the liver from an AR-15, the damage is far graver than that of a simple handgun shot injury. Handgun injuries to the liver are generally survivable unless the bullet hits the main blood supply to the liver. An AR-15 bullet wound to the middle of the liver would cause so much bleeding that the patient would likely never make it to a trauma center to receive our care.



This is retarded and proving doctors are no more logical or smarter than anyone else.

Since when have bullet wounds been a minor thing? Take a trip over to bestgore and see what people look like after car accidents, motorcycle accidents, falling from 20 stories, knife attacks, etc. No one is suggesting we ban a lot of things even though people injured are beyond saving or their injuries horrifying.







I'm sure a DOCTOR working on you someday to save your life would LOVE this intelligent wisdom.



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: djz3ro

Oh, to that I woululd have to agree. Nutters should never have access to firearms. But there's no mental health systme in the US, and people who should be able to identify the nuts, look the other way because they don't want the responsibility. But I'd suggest that theres an underlying difference between Scotland and the US.

That difference is that in Scottland, you have a cohesive ssociety , cohesive
comunities. Its not that way in te US. Here, its every person for themselves the
, devil take the hindmost. Oddly enough, thats why people in the US feel the need to have guns.



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: djz3ro

originally posted by: TonyS

That never was the answer! The answer is to limit access to these schools to only entrances that have metal detectors and armed security guards inspecting bags and doing pat downs. How much failure is it to have a kid wander about a school campus with an AR-15 in a bag and go un-noticed, unchallenged?


It's more of a failure, for the whole of your country, that the kid could get his hands on an AR15 in the first place.

Once again, I sit here In Scotland wondering why so many of my American cousins don't see how easy this is. Here in the UK we have a lot of kids with mental health issues. You don't see them walking into schools and shooting everything up.

Let me ask you, why do you think that is?


I hope you're not going to tell us the difference is your strict gun laws. Because you never had as big a problem with this as we have even before your gun laws changed. You fixed what was essentially a non-problem because of one highly publicized incident. So it's obviously not a difference in the availability of guns. If it was you would've had a slew of such incidents when the guns were available.

The US data suggests the same thing. Guns have been available forever but we've seen a relatively recent spike in these. Nothing changed. AR-15s didn't get invented right before we saw this increase. Handguns have always been prevalent as well. If anything, as our gun laws have gotten more strict we've seen an increase in these type of shootings. The data simply doesn't support the conclusion that the availability of guns is the problem.



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: djz3ro

Oh, to that I woululd have to agree. Nutters should never have access to firearms. But there's no mental health systme in the US, and people who should be able to identify the nuts, look the other way because they don't want the responsibility. But I'd suggest that theres an underlying difference between Scotland and the US.

That difference is that in Scottland, you have a cohesive ssociety , cohesive
comunities. Its not that way in te US. Here, its every person for themselves the
, devil take the hindmost. Oddly enough, thats why people in the US feel the need to have guns.


There is a palpable difference in the societies. I lived in the UK for a few years, granted it wasn't in Scotland, although I did travel there (beautiful place by the way, Scotland).



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785



There is a palpable difference in the societies.


Yes, I'm quite sure there is. All's not necessarily rosy in either Britain or the UK, if their TV programs I watch are any indication..........but they don't seem to have the deep seated divisions and animosity that courses through the US society and culture. And what's worse, from what I'm seeing, its only getting orders of magnitude worse with each passing election. I have no answers except to keep to myself as best as possible. My gates locked!



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: TonyS

Well yeah there's that. The biggest difference I noticed is the way they absorb entertainment. They get all the same violent video games and movies and whatnot as we do, but from what I saw living there almost 3 years it's not glorified the same way it is in the US. Or the way kids idolize the most worthless people in our society here. Just look at how famous this scum became. And yes I'm well aware there is such a phenomenon in the UK, it just didn't seem as pronounced to me as it is in the US. I could be wrong, that was just my impression.

That doesn't mean I'm blaming TV/movies, video games, music, etc. I do have to wonder if the different ways different societies look at such things and the extent to which those things reach into our society makes a difference though.
edit on 23 2 18 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

The main reason the military had for switching to 5.56 was because they wanted a lighter, more portable platform with less recoil and that allowed the soldier to carry more ammunition similar to the AK-47. While the .308 M-14 had a greater effective range, the engagements were happening at much closer distances that negated many of its advantages.

If you think .223/5.56 is a more powerful and effective round than, say, 7.62x51, we're just going to have to disagree on that one.



Your reason is part of it. But not all of it. The 5.56mm isn't more effective at killing, it's more effective at causing devastating wounds due to the high speed of an unstable projectile. A 7.62 will shatter bones, it will penetrate and cause through and through wounds. A 5.56 will bounce off of bones and ricochet into other organs in the body, tearing blood vessels and creating an unpredictable path through the body. I didn't say it's more powerful. I think you're misreading my posts. I said it's "yawing" tendency makes it better, and more effective at creating wounds. But those aren't my words, those are the words from the post I linked.

So if we disagree, let's at least disagree based on what I posted, not on what you thought I posted.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 12:10 PM
link   
She is 100% correct. People's rights to live should outweigh other people's whims to feel tough, or find entertainment in primitive ways, or finding amusement in obliterating things.

People have these guns for stupid reasons, none of them are anywhere near as important as other people's rights to not be shot in a killing spree.

And then these morons claim they are pro-life which is completely insane.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
other people's whims to feel tough, or find entertainment in primitive ways, or finding amusement in obliterating things.

People have these guns for stupid reasons, none of them are anywhere near as important as other people's rights to not be shot in a killing spree.


Completely uninformed. When you have to develop baseless fantasies about the people on the other side of the issue, you should take that as a sign you're on the wrong side.

The vast majority of us own these things for completely legitimate reasons that are validated every day. The lowest estimates I've seen for how many times guns are used defensively in the US is around 60,000 times per year. Most estimates are in the several hundred thousand range and the high-end estimates go into the millions. But 60K per year is the basement.

That's a stupid reason to own one?



posted on Sep, 20 2018 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
a reply to: RickyD

The .223 round was designed to only wound combatants and put them out of action (along with the still healthy soldier helping the wounded) rather than kill.


Completely false and is not officially documented in any training publication. The logic is very flawed.

Generally speaking, if I get into a contact my aim is to push forward and fight through the enemy position, reorging either in it or on the other side.

The enemy will not stop fighting to treat a colleague who is wounded if they are under effective fire, in the same way we don't. They will be too busy trying to avoid becoming casualties themselves. You deal with casualties after the fight.

If the round is designed to wound, in theory I will now gave a number of wounded enemy soldiers around me. Under Operational Law, these wounded are now my responsibility. Medical aid does not distinguish between friend or foe. I am duty bound to render aid if safe to do so and evacuate to a friendly medical facility.

They are not clogging up the enemies medical system, they are clogging up mine.

Aside from this it is also contrary to international law to utilise a weapon which is designed to cause excessive suffering. A weapon which is purposely designed to injure to the extent that a person cannot fight would fall into this category.

So no. It's not designed specifically to wound.




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join