What the doctor and this discussion fails to concern itself with is the nature of FATAL wounds and not the treatable/survivable variety. I'd be just as interested, if not more, to hear from a coroner or medical examiner about the nature of the fatal wounds from handguns vs rifles. The video example was of what I would consider a "casual" shooting [for lack of a better term] as opposed to how it would play out if you were defending yourself, aiming for center of mass and emptying the magazine. I agree with the other posts that I'm more likely to have a handgun handy as opposed to a rifle and that even a small handgun is superior to throwing rocks, so really the whole point of this topic is moot. Like everything else, the lens you view the data from colors how you view the facts. And yes, FWIW I watched the whole video.
The doc made a point near the end of his presentation that 6 of 7 handgun gunshot victims survive. Sure, ANY gsw can be fatal if not treated in a timely manner, though i wouldn't say any of those were "casual" wounds. However, the lesson I took away from this is that caliber is largely irrelevant. I would say that the wounds shown are fairly typical of self defense, given the research that sd shootings rarely use more than a handful of rounds.