Story The Sergeant Who Spoke After a Gunshot to the Head: A Truth Pro-Lifers Don’t Want to Hear

[TheVanishingPoint]

Have you ever heard of Sergeant Anthony Elliott? December 2023, SWAT patrol in San Diego, shootout in a parking lot—he gets shot directly in the head. Not only did he remain conscious, he spoke: "Tell my wife and kids I'm okay." They operated, started rehab, he walked again, and returned to service after seven months. Elliott is not an exception—he's proof that among headshot survivors, many live, and many live well. Forget those same three disfigured faces we've been shown for decades on pro-life forums: always the same cases, repeated endlessly to instill fear, as if they represented everyone. The truth is, there are hundreds of thousands of stories, but they keep showing us the same three, because the narrative must terrify. Elliott proves the outcome is not fixed. Medicine evolves. Statistics are not death sentences. And what scares moralists the most is this: that you might still choose for yourself—even after.

 

[Dot]

Ok nt 2 b 'tht' persn bt mst ppl plannng fre-arm as a ctb methd wll nt b shootng thmslves acrss th/ tp of thr skll - thy wld b shootng thru thr fce or up frm thr chn or frm thr templ

= gd tht th/ servce-mn survivd & = bck livng hs lfe bt slf wll nevr try 2 sy tht 'if u try 2 ctb wth fre-arm jst lk @ th/ chancs tht u wll recovr jst fne'

Areas of thr fce & skn & brn whch r affectd wll b mch dffrnt thn th/ xample abve & n.e1 wantng 2 us a fre-arm agnst thsmlves shld nt b shieldd frm fct tht thre r stll rsks tht cme wth doin tht

 

[TheVanishingPoint]

Ok nt 2 b 'tht' persn bt mst ppl plannng fre-arm as a ctb methd wll nt b shootng thmslves acrss th/ tp of thr skll - thy wld b shootng thru thr fce or up frm thr chn or frm thr templ

= gd tht th/ servce-mn survivd & = bck livng hs lfe bt slf wll nevr try 2 sy tht 'if u try 2 ctb wth fre-arm jst lk @ th/ chancs tht u wll recovr jst fne'

Areas of thr fce & skn & brn whch r affectd wll b mch dffrnt thn th/ xample abve & n.e1 wantng 2 us a fre-arm agnst thsmlves shld nt b shieldd frm fct tht thre r stll rsks tht cme wth doin tht

The truth about the famous 10% of survivors from gunshots to the head Every time the topic of suicide by firearm especially shots to the head comes up the usual pro-life narrative resurfaces Careful 10% survive in a vegetative state disfigured tetraplegic in a hell worse than death But let's deal with facts not inflated fears That 10% does not mean that all of them end up in monstrous conditions In fact a large portion of those who survive have non-lethal wounds superficial injuries and many recover well as in the documented case of Anthony Elliott and went back to walking working and living normally The cases used to frighten people destroyed faces devastated lives lost eyes are always the same recycled for over a decade and represent 0.3 percent or less of all suicide attempts And most of those come from poorly aimed shots to the jaw or mouth which don't even reach the brain and don't cause neurological damage only facial trauma Calling it an extreme gesture is already a linguistic filter It's called suicide And it should be addressed with clarity not fear-based rhetoric The current narrative dominated by horror imagery is not information it's psychological dissuasion a fear filter used to control If we really wanted to inform we should also talk about the survivors who walk who talk who live Not just the same three disfigured faces we've seen for twenty years Otherwise that's not information It's propaganda


And then there's Donald Trump. According to the pro-life narrative, anyone in the so-called "10%" of survivors should be blind, paralyzed, or in a vegetative state. And yet there he is: shot in the head, still standing, smiling, slicked back as always… and just re-elected president. Apparently, not every shot to the head is the end — some turn into election campaigns.
My intention is not to promote anything, but to analyze the data objectively. Unfortunately, I notice that even in this forum only the most alarmist narrative is accepted — one built on fear rather than evidence. Sadly, the presence of pro-life infiltrators is evident, and they suffocate any free and rational debate.

 

[Dot]

U sy propgnda bt th/ xampls tht u r usng d/ nt rel8 t/ th/ typs of injris tht suicdl ppl wll hve - = nt an honst argmnt -- ppl d/ nt sht thmslves frm 100yds awy

= abt as honst as argmnt as th/ allegd Hillry Clintn suicdes bcse thy wre sht in th/ hed twce - th/ fct tht thy wre in th/ bck of th/ hed changs nothng

Donld Trmp ws sht in th/ ear - thy missd hs hed

If u wn2 mke an argmnt agnst th/ rsks of injris frm suicde attmpts wth fre-arm thn u nd 2 us suicde attmpts as ur xampls - nt genrlisd survivr statstcs whch inclde cmpltely dffrnt injris & angls & distnces etc

U r tryn2 mke a pst t/ 'reassre' ppl wh/ wnt 2 us fre-arm -- whch itslf = ethiclly questnble -- & am also goin2 guss tht = ur methd whch u r tryn2 mke urslf fl bettr abt bt u r twistng th/ dta in a ds-honst wy

"Only facl trma" -- yh trma whre ppl hve dsfigurd thmslves & givn thmslves mre typs of PTSD & th/ socl isolatn & insecrty whch cmes frm dsfiguremnt & b-ing a walkng advrtsmnt fr "lk evry1 - slf am a faild attmpt @ shootng slf in th/ fce"

 

[TheVanishingPoint]

There Are Also Fake Neurological Damages
Kenneth L. Curtis shot himself in the head in 1987 after killing his girlfriend. He survived the shot and was initially declared unfit to stand trial due to alleged neurological damage caused by the injury. However, in the following months, Curtis began regularly attending university, enrolling in medical school, taking exams, and performing well. His evident recovery raised suspicions, prompting a reevaluation. Given his full cognitive recovery and proven ability to lead an intellectually active life, he was eventually deemed competent to stand trial and was convicted of murder. This is yet another case that falls into that so-called "10%" which, according to mainstream narratives, should always result in a vegetative state, quadriplegia, or severely impaired conditions.

U sy propgnda bt th/ xampls tht u r usng d/ nt rel8 t/ th/ typs of injris tht suicdl ppl wll hve - = nt an honst argmnt -- ppl d/ nt sht thmslves frm 100yds awy

= abt as honst as argmnt as th/ allegd Hillry Clintn suicdes bcse thy wre sht in th/ hed twce - th/ fct tht thy wre in th/ bck of th/ hed changs nothng

Donld Trmp ws sht in th/ ear - thy missd hs hed

If u wn2 mke an argmnt agnst th/ rsks of injris frm suicde attmpts wth fre-arm thn u nd 2 us suicde attmpts as ur xampls - nt genrlisd survivr statstcs whch inclde cmpltely dffrnt injris & angls & distnces etc

U r tryn2 mke a pst t/ 'reassre' ppl wh/ wnt 2 us fre-arm -- whch itslf = ethiclly questnble -- & am also goin2 guss tht = ur methd whch u r tryn2 mke urslf fl bettr abt bt u r twistng th/ dta in a ds-honst wy

"Only facl trma" -- yh trma whre ppl hve dsfigurd thmslves & givn thmslves mre typs of PTSD & th/ socl isolatn & insecrty whch cmes frm dsfiguremnt & b-ing a walkng advrtsmnt fr "lk evry1 - slf am a faild attmpt @ shootng slf in th/ fce"

I would like to clarify that at no point in my contribution did I try to offer reassurance or minimize the issue. What I criticized was the instrumental and misleading use of the statistic that 10% survive a gunshot to the head, as if this figure automatically implied a fate of disfigurement, quadriplegia, or a vegetative state. This is a brutal oversimplification of reality, often accompanied by the repeated media display of the same three well-known faces, used more to instill fear than to inform.

In truth, there are also well-documented cases of survival with significant or full recovery, such as that of Sergeant Elliott or, ironically, that of Donald Trump himself. These cases fit perfectly within the oft-cited 10% statistic, and are thus representative of that group. That they may disturb some is understandable, but this does not justify arbitrarily excluding them from the conversation. They are part of reality and part of the data – whether one likes it or not.

Acknowledging the variety of outcomes does not mean promoting anything; it simply means showing respect for the facts and for the intelligence of those reading. I understand that the topic is delicate, but for that very reason, it should be approached with precision and without propaganda, from any side.

 

[DoomCry]

Sorry to jump in but it's obvious this thread was opened to challenge the fairy tale of 10% survive a gunshot to the head but end up paralyzed or in a vegetative state which by the way refers only to people who attempt suicide not those who are shot in other circumstances. I don't understand why when people want to show horrifying stories full of blood lost eyes exploded brains just to instill fear that's perfectly allowed. But the moment someone dares to point out that this percentage doesn't hold up that there are also cases of clear-headed survival not catastrophic or deformed that don't fit the usual fear-mongering narrative then the thread gets shut down or attacked. Take Drew Robinson he shot himself lost an eye but he's fully conscious autonomous not paralyzed not in a vegetative state not the kind of wreck people love to use for scare tactics. And yet his case documented and verifiable gets conveniently ignored when it doesn't support the preferred narrative. So let's be honest either all data is accepted even the data that contradicts the pro-life script or admit that this isn't about truth it's about protecting a certain kind of propaganda. If we're not allowed to talk about firearms then fine we'll talk about sodium nitrite instead. But let's be clear censorship only kicks in when someone dares to question the official story and that simply put is not honest.

 

[Dot]

I would like to clarify that at no point in my contribution did I try to offer reassurance or minimize the issue. What I criticized was the instrumental and misleading use of the statistic that 10% survive a gunshot to the head, as if this figure automatically implied a fate of disfigurement, quadriplegia, or a vegetative state. This is a brutal oversimplification of reality, often accompanied by the repeated media display of the same three well-known faces, used more to instill fear than to inform.

Bt if 10% survve a hed-sht thn = logistcl tht a certn numbr of thse wll hve permmnt injry - slf fnd othr artcls whch sggestd tht CTB attmpts fr fre-arm hve avrge of 74% survivl bt tht ws nt specfc t/ hed -- & ur xampls r specfc t/ hed bt nt CTB attmpts whch r mch closr

A 2016 stdy showd tht 37% of survivrs frm 1 hosptl wre transfrrd fr needng lng-trm re-habiltatn & only 4% wre dschargd str8 hme

Howevr tht 37% figre cmes frm a numbr whch includd ppl wh/ dd nt actully survve bt wh/ only survivd lng enuf t/ b takn t/ hosptl -- s/ frm 65 actul survivrs 58 of thm or 89% needd lng-trm cre or rehab -- only 7 wre dschargd hme & assumdly recovrd

In truth, there are also well-documented cases of survival with significant or full recovery, such as that of Sergeant Elliott or, ironically, that of Donald Trump himself. These cases fit perfectly within the oft-cited 10% statistic, and are thus representative of that group. That they may disturb some is understandable, but this does not justify arbitrarily excluding them from the conversation. They are part of reality and part of the data – whether one likes it or not.

A v smll represet8tve - hwevr lng-trm rehab ds nt confrm xtent of injuris & wethr thy r nurolgcl or losng an ey etc whch slf wll admt

Agn - neithr th/ Sergnt nor DJT attmptd hed-basd CTB s/ thre dta = nt relvnt t/ artcles directd 2wrds suicdl ppl whse methds wll b cmpletly dffrnt

Acknowledging the variety of outcomes does not mean promoting anything; it simply means showing respect for the facts and for the intelligence of those reading. I understand that the topic is delicate, but for that very reason, it should be approached with precision and without propaganda, from any side.

Sorry to jump in but it's obvious this thread was opened to challenge the fairy tale of 10% survive a gunshot to the head but end up paralyzed or in a vegetative state which by the way refers only to people who attempt suicide not those who are shot in other circumstances. I don't understand why when people want to show horrifying stories full of blood lost eyes exploded brains just to instill fear that's perfectly allowed. But the moment someone dares to point out that this percentage doesn't hold up that there are also cases of clear-headed survival not catastrophic or deformed that don't fit the usual fear-mongering narrative then the thread gets shut down or attacked. Take Drew RobinsonView attachment 170083 he shot himself lost an eye but he's fully conscious autonomous not paralyzed not in a vegetative state not the kind of wreck people love to use for scare tactics. And yet his case documented and verifiable gets conveniently ignored when it doesn't support the preferred narrative. So let's be honest either all data is accepted even the data that contradicts the pro-life script or admit that this isn't about truth it's about protecting a certain kind of propaganda. If we're not allowed to talk about firearms then fine we'll talk about sodium nitrite instead. But let's be clear censorship only kicks in when someone dares to question the official story and that simply put is not honest.

Tht wrks bth wys tho -- usng individl xampls fr 'provng' eithr sde of th/ argmnt ds nt hld up eithr

Whle anti-suicde postrs etc wll us thse pictres t/ try 2 scre ppl awy frm attmptng imo = also importnt t/ acknwldge tht rsks of lng-trm damge frm survivng tht methd r signifcnt & tht whtevr ppl r choosng 2 d/ wth thr lves thy shld nt act on implse & rserch thr plns v crefully bcse tht wll affct thr outcmes

 

[whywere]

I am NOT pro-life NOR pro-ctb, I am prochoice in everything, abortion ctb everything.

I just wish that everyone takes a step back research and think through everything before doing ANYTHING in life, not just thinking of ctb.

I have seen through the years too much of the narrative of folks doing something not as much on an impulse as NOT completely thinking and analyzing whatever that they are thinking of.

Be it food, smoking, drinking, street drugs, abortion, ctb and the list goes on a long time of doing something on a knee jerk reaction and then comes not only regret BUT sometimes a messed-up body, mind and hurting so many others around them.

Like I have always said that when the quantity overtakes the quality of life because of my 24/7 chronic pain, then decisions will be made. However, those decisions will be completely thought out, yes nothing is 100% and I get that, but I will do my best to have a complete operative and NOT bother anyone else ever.

Walter

 

[locked*n*loaded]

Donald Trump barely got nicked with a bullet. Frankly it's bad enough even mentioning his name, but due to the way he got hit, with no penetration, his name shouldn't even be brought into this discussion at all.

I'm don't want to argue statistics on firearm ctb. It's certainly a reliable method, and the stats in the US bear that out. It's the most effective, reliable method that I've investigated. You're always going to have outliers in pretty much everything, though, with some of those worse than others.

I knew a guy once who shot himself. It's unclear whether it was a suicide attempt, or just an accident. He said accident, but who knows? He shot himself in the head, but survived. He is still alive, afaik, but he was pretty messed up from the incident. He has very limited use of his arm (can't remember if left or right), and he walks with, kind of, a "sideways" gait. But, he was functioning ok, getting by, even working. I think he had a little bit of a speech impediment, too.

Any method has risks, no doubt. Actually, firearm is my backup method, if, when the time comes, I have no other option. I'd certainly chance it. But, I'd be using a shotgun to give myself the best chance of success.

 

[TheVanishingPoint]

The study you mentioned (Murphy et al., 2016) does not actually prove that 41% of people survive a self-inflicted gunshot to the head. That number appears only because the study includes only patients who arrived alive at the hospital, meaning it automatically excludes all those who died on the spot — which are the vast majority in gunshot suicide attempts. On top of that, the study mixes very different types of injuries: neck wounds, submental shots, intraoral trajectories, and peripheral cranial injuries. These areas have much higher survival rates than direct temporal or brainstem shots. So using this study to argue against overall lethality is methodologically wrong. As for the 10% survival rate, it's essential to clarify that it does not only include "perfectly aimed" suicide attempts. That 10% includes everything — partial shots, grazing wounds, hesitation pulls, mechanical failures, and even survived homicide attempts. It's an average over a mixed population. That means cases like Donald Trump's absolutely fall within that 10%, as do people who fully recover and return to independent life. You can't just exclude what doesn't fit the narrative and keep only the most catastrophic outcomes to push a message. If we're talking about statistics, either all cases are counted, or it's not science — it's ideology.

 

[Dot]

Howevr tht 37% figre cmes frm a numbr whch includd ppl wh/ dd nt actully survve bt wh/ only survivd lng enuf t/ b takn t/ hosptl -- s/ frm 65 actul survivrs 58 of thm or 89% needd lng-trm cre or rehab -- only 7 wre dschargd hme & assumdly recovrd

^^^^^^

Slf sd 37% of ppl wh/ arrivd @ hosptl wre transfrrd fr lng-trm cre bt tht % changd t/ 89% whn takng in2 accnt th/ numbr of arrivls wh/ dd nt survve

Slf dd nt claim tht 41% of ppl survve gn-sht wnds 2 th/ hed - 41% ws th/ proprtn of ppl wh/ wre killd frm othr ppl shootng thm in th/ hed as opposd t/ shootng thmslves in th/ hed - sourc b-low

https://codmansurgical.integralife.com/gunshot-head-wounds-what-impacts-survival/

U rght tht th/ artcl dd nt gve an ovrall survivl stastc bcse frstly evdnce fr ur argmnt ws fcusng on numbr of ppl wh/ flly recovr vs ppl wh/ bcme 'vegtbles' -- th/ artcl ws highlghtng th/ proprtn of hed-sht CTB-attmpt survivrs wh/ r dschargd hme w/o needng lng-trm cre or lng-trm rehabltatn whch wld sggst sevre &/or lng-trm injry -- s/ tht vs 10% survivl r8 wre 2 dffrnt thngs bt slf undrstnd hw tht statstc = broadly usd

Also

On top of that, the study mixes very different types of injuries: neck wounds, submental shots, intraoral trajectories, and peripheral cranial injuries. These areas have much higher survival rates than direct temporal or brainstem shots. So using this study to argue against overall lethality is methodologically wrong.

Thy r all prts of th/ hed whch CTB attemptrs targt - shootng thmslves in hed & fce - neck wnds r bcse thy r firng up thru thr chn - intraoral = thru thr mouth - peripherl intrcrnial "damage to the cranial nerves, which are the nerves that arise directly from the brain and brainstem."

As for the 10% survival rate, it's essential to clarify that it does not only include "perfectly aimed" suicide attempts. That 10% includes everything — partial shots, grazing wounds, hesitation pulls, mechanical failures, and even survived homicide attempts. It's an average over a mixed population. That means cases like Donald Trump's absolutely fall within that 10%, as do people who fully recover and return to independent life.

Ok s/ thre r anti-suicde advoc8tes usng a figre whch ds nt apply t/ suicde statstcs in th/ 1st plce whch cse slf agree ofc thy r wrng - s/ th/ problm wth thr argmnts = tht thy r twistng a cmpletly dffrnt set of dta in ordr t/ mke thr argmnt

You can't just exclude what doesn't fit the narrative and keep only the most catastrophic outcomes to push a message. If we're talking about statistics, either all cases are counted, or it's not science — it's ideology.

Yh slf agree wth u - sdly ppl pushng propgnda wll only inclde info whch cre8tes thr narr8tve -- bt if data tht thy r usng = nt evn applicble t/ suicde attmpts in genrl thn imo = bettr t/ jst hgh-lght tht thy r usng dta whch cmes frm cmpletly th/ wrng plce