Be very very careful when comparing death rates from various weapons. There are way too many variables that come into account. Police research on homicide rates indicate that one of the biggest reasons less people are being murdered each year is nothing to do with the crime rate or weapons. It is the medical attention the people receive and in what time frame. A proper ER or Ambulance/EMT's can save a life if they get to the person in the first "golden" hour. But in a mass shooting, unless you are in a major city, there will not be enough medical care to go around. If ten people get shot in San Antonio, there will be ten ambulances there, with a few firetrucks as helpers. But if ten people got shot in Luling, it takes fifteen minutes for the second ambulance to arrive from the next town over. I don't think we could get ten ambulances into Luling in a couple hours.stroo wrote:Actually a 30% death rate is pretty high for gunshot wounds. From various sources I have seen on the web the death rate from handgunshot wounds ranges a little above 15% for wounds to the body and about 90% for wounds to the head. Shotgun and rifle wound have higher death rates, I have seen 67% for shotguns in one place. So the 30% death rate for Hasan's 5.7 is pretty significant.
I don't know how many ambulances Ft. Hood and Killeen have, but many of the people were saved by first aid from friends/witnesses. This includes some drastic measures like tourniquets being applied. Based on this, I am not surprised the death rate was higher than average for pistol shootings, without the weapon being taken into account.
Given the one female soldier who ran back in to help more people before she realized she had even been shot (a through the body wound), I am even more convinced than ever that shot placement is going to be the key to any death rate, with medical care being the second factor.