Skip to main content

Firearm Injuries

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Veterinary Forensic Pathology, Volume 1

Abstract

Projectile injury represents an estimated 14% of reported animal cruelty cases affecting domestic species in the United States. Reliable statistics for unlawful projectile injury in wildlife species are not currently available. Cases involving projectiles are complicated by gross similarities to other common types of injury, including bite wounds and motor vehicle injuries. Weapons and ammunition not commonly recognized or understood by veterinary medical professionals and required expertise beyond that employed in routine postmortem examination make projectile injury cases even more challenging. For these reasons, a general understanding of projectile weapons, ammunition, and ballistics is necessary before pursuing forensic projectile cases. This chapter describes the common types of projectile injuries encountered within the United States, as well as types of weapons and ammunition associated with this form of injury. The three stages of ballistics—internal, external, and terminal—and wounding capacity are discussed. The forensic necropsy is described, including gunshot wound examination, projectile trajectories, different imaging procedures, collection and storage of projectile evidence, and potential advanced techniques, for gunpowder analysis. This chapter presents aspects of projectile injury investigation that must be considered in combination with standard postmortem practices and procedures to ensure reliable conclusions are reached for medicolegal as well as diagnostic purposes.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily represent those of the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Munro R, Munro HMC. Animal abuse and unlawful killing: forensic veterinary pathology. Edinburgh: Saunders Elsevier; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Merck M. Veterinary forensics: animal cruelty investigations. Ames: Blackwell Publishing; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Lockwood R. Factors in the assessment of dangerousness of perpetrators of animal cruelty. http://coloradolinkproject.com/dangerousness-factors-2/. Accessed Sept 2013.

  4. Lockwood R. When animal and humans attack: veterinary and behavior forensic issues in investigating animal attacks and shootings [abstract]. Paper presented at: joint ASPCA NAVC conference; 2011; Orlando, FL; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Tedeschi P. Methods for forensic animal maltreatment evaluations. In: Levitt L, Patronek G, Grisso T, editors. Animal maltreatment: forensic mental health issues and evaluations. 1st ed. Oxford: University Press; 2015. p. 309–31.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Pavletic MM. A review of 121 gunshot wounds in the dog and cat. Vet Surg. 1985;14:61–2.

    Google Scholar 

  7. DiMaio VJM. Gunshot wounds: practical aspects of firearms, ballistics, and forensic techniques. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Haag MG, Haag LC. Shooting incident reconstruction. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Thompson MC, Lancaster CA, Banta MG, Hart CN, Scanlan MD, Espinoza EO. Chemical properties of selected plastic-tipped bullets. AFTE J. 2012;44:38–46.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fackler ML. Civilian gunshot wounds and ballistics: dispelling the myths. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 1998;16:17–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Santucci RA, Chang YJ. Ballistics for physicians: myths about wound ballistics and gunshot injuries. J Urol. 2004;171:1408–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Harcke HT, Levy AD, Getz JM, Robinson SR. MDCT analysis of projectile injury in forensic investigation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;190:W106–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Harcke HT, Levy AD, Abbott RM, Mallak CT, Getz JM, Champion HR, Pearse L. Autopsy radiography: digital radiographs (DR) vs multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) in high-velocity gunshot-wound victims. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2007;28:13–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Pavletic MM. Atlas of small animal wound management and reconstructive surgery. Ames: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Clasper J. The interaction of projectiles with tissues and the management of ballistic fractures. J R Army Med Corps. 2001;147:52–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Felsmann MZ, Szarek J, Felsmann M, Babinska I. Factors affecting temporary cavity generation during gunshot wound formation in animals - new aspects in the light of flow mechanics: a review. Veterinarni Medicina. 2012;57:569–74.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Korac Z, Kelenic D, Hancevic J, Baskot A, Danko M. The application of computed tomography in the analysis of permanent cavity: a new method in terminal ballistics. Acta Clin Croat. 2002;41:205–9.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Perez DB, Molina DK. The utility of routine histological examination of gunshot wounds. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2012;33:231–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Jacobs NA, Morgan LH. On the management of retained airgun pellets: a survey of 11 orbital cases. Br J Ophthalmol. 1988;72:97–100.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. LaDouceur EE, Kagan R, Scanlan M, Viner T. Chronically embedded lead projectiles in wildlife: a case series investigating the potential for lead Toxicosis. J Zoo Wildl Med. 2015;46:438–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hain JR. Fatal arrow wounds. J Forensic Sci. 1989;34:691–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Randall B, Newby P. Comparison of gunshot wounds and field-tipped arrow wounds using morphological criteria and chemical spot tests. J Forensic Sci. 1989;34:579–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Cunningham LL, Haug RH, Ford J. Firearm injuries to the maxillofacial region: an overview of current thoughts regarding demographics, pathophysiology, and management. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2003;61:932–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Baker JL, Havas KA, Miller LA, Lacy WA, Schlanser J. Gunshot wounds in military working dogs in operation enduring freedom and operation Iraqi freedom: 29 cases (2003–2009). J Vet Emerg Crit Care (San Antonio). 2013;23:47–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lucas KN, Johnson N, Beaulieu WT, Cathcart E, Tirrell G, Colin SP, Gemmell BJ, Dabiri JO, Costello JH. Bending rules for animal propulsion. Nat Commun. 2014;5:3293.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Jason A. Effect of hair on the deposition of gunshot residue. Forensic Sci Commun. 2004;6:1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Weis C, Brooks JW, Moorehead WK, Ristenbatt RR. Shooting distance estimation using gunshot residue on mammalian pelts. Master’s Thesis. The Pennsylvania State University; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to N. Bradley-Siemens D.V.M., M.P.H. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Bradley-Siemens, N., Brower, A.I., Kagan, R. (2018). Firearm Injuries. In: Brooks, J. (eds) Veterinary Forensic Pathology, Volume 1. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67172-7_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics