<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
     xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
     xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
	<channel>
	  <title>Ask MetaFilter questions tagged with gunshotwounds</title>
      <link>http://ask.metafilter.com/tags/gunshotwounds</link>
      <description>Questions tagged with 'gunshotwounds' at Ask MetaFilter.</description>
	  <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:35:38 -0800</pubDate> <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:35:38 -0800</lastBuildDate>

      <language>en-us</language>
	  <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
	  <ttl>60</ttl>	  
	<item>
	<title>Why is it so important to remove the bullet?</title>
	<link>http://ask.metafilter.com/73088/Why%2Dis%2Dit%2Dso%2Dimportant%2Dto%2Dremove%2Dthe%2Dbullet</link>	
	<description>In umpteen movies and TV shows that we have all seen, when someone is shot, the first thing that anyone giving them aid is concerned with is &quot;getting the bullet out&quot; - usually followed by a painful extraction of the projectile before any other first aid is applied.  Why is this? You often hear about people who survived gunshot wounds who still have slugs inside them, right? So in the movies, is this done sheerly for dramatic effect, or is there any basis in reality for the urgency of removing the bullet? Is there any pressing need to remove the bullet from a shooting victim that trumps the need to stop bleeding, disinfect the wound, et. c?</description>
	<guid isPermaLink="false">tag:ask.metafilter.com,2007:site.73088</guid>
	<pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:35:38 -0800</pubDate>
	<category>firstaid</category>
	<category>gunshotwounds</category>
	<category>gunsinmovies</category>
	<dc:creator>GriffX</dc:creator>
	</item>
	
	</channel>
</rss>

