Since a lot of firearms threads come up, and we keep having to cover the same myths over and over, often with increased hatred and anger each time, I thought it'd be nice to quickly cover a few of the key myths about guns.
Bear in mind, none of these are unreasonable beliefs--they wouldn't have become myths if they were crazy. They are, however, incorrect. Here they are in no particular order:
ON SHOOTING:
If you have a gun...
1. ...you should shoot only once, or perhaps twice.
Myth. While we tend to call "excessive force" on people who fire repeatedly, they're doing exactly what they should. This isn't the movies, and we're not all crack shots. It's extremely easy to miss with a handgun. Most shots under duress fired miss completely, even with cops and military personnel.
What's more, a single bullet can eventually kill someone (though most people survive single gunshot wounds), but it rarely stops them instantly. Some assailants may take four or five slugs and still have to be physically wrestled to the ground by police. That's four or five hits, not just shots fired. Your goal isn't to hurt them. It's to stop them. So you should continue firing until they stop.
2. ...you should fire a warning shot first.
Myth. "Warning shots" exist in Hollywood, not the real world. Every bullet goes somewhere. As the gun's user, you are responsible for controlling where that bullet goes. Firing into the air can (and does) kill innocents up to a mile away from the scene. Firing at the ground can cause an unsafe ricochet that could even harm you. What's more, you've wasted a bullet and precious seconds.
If you're firing, you must have a target. And you send all of your bullets toward that target and only that target. Anything else is highly irresponsible and dangerous, despite what movies claim.
3. ...you should try to shoot their legs, or something else to injure (but not kill) them.
Myth. More Hollywood magic. First of all, do you know how dangerous a shot in the leg really is? Probably not, because folks in movies treat it like the most survivable wound. Two words: femoral artery. You can bleed out in seconds from just a knick. So, no, it's not "safer." There is no such thing as "shooting to wound." Every shot that hits can kill a person, so every shot should be treated as lethal.
But aside from that, there's a reason police are trained to shoot for "center mass." It is not because that's where the vital organs are, or because it's more lethal (though both of those are true). It is because it presents the largest target, more mass to absorb the energy of the bullet, and thus less chance of the bullet bypassing or going through the target to hit something else. A leg is a tiny, fast target, and it is incredibly difficult to hit even for a trained shooter--almost as hard to hit as the head.
It's safer for everyone to shoot center mass. Also, because there's more energy transferred into the body, that force goes toward stopping the target, which is our goal anyhow. If you're shooting, you aim for center mass.
4. ...don't use hollowpoints. They're designed to do more damage!
Myth. Hollow-pointed bullets are designed to fragment inside the target. This can cause a different sort of damage, sometimes more than a "normal" round. But that's not their purpose. The purpose of the fragmentation is to make sure the bullet doesn't pass through the target.
This would do two things: first, it would pose a risk to anyone or anything behind the target, and second, it means a lot of that round's 'stopping power' was wasted--the energy wasn't transferred into the target. A normal round could pass through a running attacker with no noticeable change in their momentum.
Fact is, hollowpoints are safer. They are also more effective at stopping the target, and remember, that's our goal. We should be prepared for the fact that they can be seriously injured or kill, but our ultimate goal is to stop their advance and keep them from harming us. Period.
ON THE "THREAT" OF AN ATTACKER
If you have a gun...
1. ...and you don't see a weapon in your attacker's hand, they are not a threat.
Myth. Not seeing a weapon doesn't mean they don't have one. They are not required to announce a weapon or present it to you. Odds are, if they have a gun, they could draw it and shoot before you have time to draw in reaction. So, you must draw before they do. But this is mostly for cops.
See, for a civilian, if this person is an attacker, it means they're attacking. They're probably not far away. And up that close, how can you know what's hidden where? Your field of vision is limited.
2. ...and the attacker has a knife, they are not a threat.
Myth. We think it's true because you have to be close to stab someone, but not to shoot them--distance is the advantage, right?
A little test called the Tueller Drill has repeatedly proven that an attacker with a knife can close a distance of 21 feet in 1.5 seconds. That means you must be able to draw, aim, fire, and hit your target in a way that stops his motion in under 1.5 seconds, or you're getting stabbed. Even trained police officers have trouble doing that, which is why they are authorized to use firearms against knives anywhere under 30 feet, usually.
3. ...your first responsibility is to announce the gun and warn the attacker.
Myth. We think is is true because cops do it. But that's because in those situations, the officer starts out a good distance away from the attacker. Ideally, outside lethal range of an attack. Now, if the attacker has a gun pointed at the cop, or has a gun with demonstrated intent to use it, even that gets a pass.
If you're being attacked, the attacker is close. Remember, 1.5 seconds. That's not enough time to draw an pronounce your warning. And God help you if you announce the gun before drawing, because you just gave them the biggest reason in the world to rush you even faster.
4. ...you have to assume the attacker just wants your money, not to kill you.
Myth. Why should you have to assume that? This attacker is not "innocent until proven guilty." By attacking you, he has proven himself guilty. He views you as an obstacle between him and something. You don't know what that 'something' is, but you do know he has demonstrated the intent to harm you to get to it. It might be money. It might be rape. It might be murder. You're not his shrink or his lawyer. No one has the right to harm you to take something that is rightfully yours.
What's more, if someone has attacked you, they've demonstrated that they view your basic human rights as secondary to their wants. Not so far a stretch to think that killing you won't weigh too heavily on their conscience.
We tend to think this is true because of laws surrounding home invasion. If someone breaks in, grabs your TV, and heads for the door, you can't shoot them to keep your TV. They have demonstrated they intend to leave, so legally you can't shoot them. If they advance on you, however, this is changed instantly. (The only legal sticky spot is if you move to block their exit. This makes you the "aggressor" in some systems.)
5. ...you should try to get away first.
Myth. If you're being attacked, you're probably not in an area you control. Probably not your car, maybe not even your house. If you run, where will you run to? Do you know? Even if you happen to have somewhere nearby in mind, the attacker will likely pursue you--you've seen him, and he hasn't gotten whatever he wanted yet. Two good reasons to give chase. Are you sure you're faster than him? Are you sure you won't trip, and end up in a highly disadvantageous position?
What's more, if you're being attacked, these things don't usually start from a distance. It's up close. Turn your back, and you're done. The attacker wouldn't be attacking if they didn't have an advantage of some kind. This is why "Stand Your Ground" laws are gaining steam, and even in places that don't have them, it's hard to prosecute someone in that situation who truly felt they could not escape.
________________________
I hope that at least some of you have found this in some way enlightening. People that believe these myths about firearms actually cause them to be more dangerous, because those beliefs promote irresponsible use of firearms. They also lead people to form uninformed judgments about people--cops and civilians alike--who properly use firearms in those few situations where it was necessary.
Bear in mind, none of these are unreasonable beliefs--they wouldn't have become myths if they were crazy. They are, however, incorrect. Here they are in no particular order:
ON SHOOTING:
If you have a gun...
1. ...you should shoot only once, or perhaps twice.
Myth. While we tend to call "excessive force" on people who fire repeatedly, they're doing exactly what they should. This isn't the movies, and we're not all crack shots. It's extremely easy to miss with a handgun. Most shots under duress fired miss completely, even with cops and military personnel.
What's more, a single bullet can eventually kill someone (though most people survive single gunshot wounds), but it rarely stops them instantly. Some assailants may take four or five slugs and still have to be physically wrestled to the ground by police. That's four or five hits, not just shots fired. Your goal isn't to hurt them. It's to stop them. So you should continue firing until they stop.
2. ...you should fire a warning shot first.
Myth. "Warning shots" exist in Hollywood, not the real world. Every bullet goes somewhere. As the gun's user, you are responsible for controlling where that bullet goes. Firing into the air can (and does) kill innocents up to a mile away from the scene. Firing at the ground can cause an unsafe ricochet that could even harm you. What's more, you've wasted a bullet and precious seconds.
If you're firing, you must have a target. And you send all of your bullets toward that target and only that target. Anything else is highly irresponsible and dangerous, despite what movies claim.
3. ...you should try to shoot their legs, or something else to injure (but not kill) them.
Myth. More Hollywood magic. First of all, do you know how dangerous a shot in the leg really is? Probably not, because folks in movies treat it like the most survivable wound. Two words: femoral artery. You can bleed out in seconds from just a knick. So, no, it's not "safer." There is no such thing as "shooting to wound." Every shot that hits can kill a person, so every shot should be treated as lethal.
But aside from that, there's a reason police are trained to shoot for "center mass." It is not because that's where the vital organs are, or because it's more lethal (though both of those are true). It is because it presents the largest target, more mass to absorb the energy of the bullet, and thus less chance of the bullet bypassing or going through the target to hit something else. A leg is a tiny, fast target, and it is incredibly difficult to hit even for a trained shooter--almost as hard to hit as the head.
It's safer for everyone to shoot center mass. Also, because there's more energy transferred into the body, that force goes toward stopping the target, which is our goal anyhow. If you're shooting, you aim for center mass.
4. ...don't use hollowpoints. They're designed to do more damage!
Myth. Hollow-pointed bullets are designed to fragment inside the target. This can cause a different sort of damage, sometimes more than a "normal" round. But that's not their purpose. The purpose of the fragmentation is to make sure the bullet doesn't pass through the target.
This would do two things: first, it would pose a risk to anyone or anything behind the target, and second, it means a lot of that round's 'stopping power' was wasted--the energy wasn't transferred into the target. A normal round could pass through a running attacker with no noticeable change in their momentum.
Fact is, hollowpoints are safer. They are also more effective at stopping the target, and remember, that's our goal. We should be prepared for the fact that they can be seriously injured or kill, but our ultimate goal is to stop their advance and keep them from harming us. Period.
ON THE "THREAT" OF AN ATTACKER
If you have a gun...
1. ...and you don't see a weapon in your attacker's hand, they are not a threat.
Myth. Not seeing a weapon doesn't mean they don't have one. They are not required to announce a weapon or present it to you. Odds are, if they have a gun, they could draw it and shoot before you have time to draw in reaction. So, you must draw before they do. But this is mostly for cops.
See, for a civilian, if this person is an attacker, it means they're attacking. They're probably not far away. And up that close, how can you know what's hidden where? Your field of vision is limited.
2. ...and the attacker has a knife, they are not a threat.
Myth. We think it's true because you have to be close to stab someone, but not to shoot them--distance is the advantage, right?
A little test called the Tueller Drill has repeatedly proven that an attacker with a knife can close a distance of 21 feet in 1.5 seconds. That means you must be able to draw, aim, fire, and hit your target in a way that stops his motion in under 1.5 seconds, or you're getting stabbed. Even trained police officers have trouble doing that, which is why they are authorized to use firearms against knives anywhere under 30 feet, usually.
3. ...your first responsibility is to announce the gun and warn the attacker.
Myth. We think is is true because cops do it. But that's because in those situations, the officer starts out a good distance away from the attacker. Ideally, outside lethal range of an attack. Now, if the attacker has a gun pointed at the cop, or has a gun with demonstrated intent to use it, even that gets a pass.
If you're being attacked, the attacker is close. Remember, 1.5 seconds. That's not enough time to draw an pronounce your warning. And God help you if you announce the gun before drawing, because you just gave them the biggest reason in the world to rush you even faster.
4. ...you have to assume the attacker just wants your money, not to kill you.
Myth. Why should you have to assume that? This attacker is not "innocent until proven guilty." By attacking you, he has proven himself guilty. He views you as an obstacle between him and something. You don't know what that 'something' is, but you do know he has demonstrated the intent to harm you to get to it. It might be money. It might be rape. It might be murder. You're not his shrink or his lawyer. No one has the right to harm you to take something that is rightfully yours.
What's more, if someone has attacked you, they've demonstrated that they view your basic human rights as secondary to their wants. Not so far a stretch to think that killing you won't weigh too heavily on their conscience.
We tend to think this is true because of laws surrounding home invasion. If someone breaks in, grabs your TV, and heads for the door, you can't shoot them to keep your TV. They have demonstrated they intend to leave, so legally you can't shoot them. If they advance on you, however, this is changed instantly. (The only legal sticky spot is if you move to block their exit. This makes you the "aggressor" in some systems.)
5. ...you should try to get away first.
Myth. If you're being attacked, you're probably not in an area you control. Probably not your car, maybe not even your house. If you run, where will you run to? Do you know? Even if you happen to have somewhere nearby in mind, the attacker will likely pursue you--you've seen him, and he hasn't gotten whatever he wanted yet. Two good reasons to give chase. Are you sure you're faster than him? Are you sure you won't trip, and end up in a highly disadvantageous position?
What's more, if you're being attacked, these things don't usually start from a distance. It's up close. Turn your back, and you're done. The attacker wouldn't be attacking if they didn't have an advantage of some kind. This is why "Stand Your Ground" laws are gaining steam, and even in places that don't have them, it's hard to prosecute someone in that situation who truly felt they could not escape.
________________________
I hope that at least some of you have found this in some way enlightening. People that believe these myths about firearms actually cause them to be more dangerous, because those beliefs promote irresponsible use of firearms. They also lead people to form uninformed judgments about people--cops and civilians alike--who properly use firearms in those few situations where it was necessary.
