Things You Might (Incorrectly) Believe About Guns

[TriGGeR_HaPPy]

Very well done, dastardly. Well-structured OP and good responses to all replies that needed a response.
Mind, I already knew this stuff beforehand, but I too occasionally see some specific people on this site showing off their incredible lack of knowledge on this topic, so I practically want this thread stickied.

 

[Manicotti]

Outstanding and ridiculously informative post, Mr. D. I reposted it on my Facebook and linked it back here to make sure this information gets out.

 

[Dastardly]

snip

I think the biggest two that get me are the "just shoot the leg!" or "just fire a warning shot!" people. It shows a fundamental lack of understanding in how firearms work, what sort of damage they can do, and just how hard it is to hit a moving target the width of a human leg even with extensive training.

Other than that, it's all the hindsight bullshit where people say, "Look! He wasn't even armed!" Yeah, good luck spotting that in the heat of the moment with panic in your brain. You're being attacked, you don't have time to scour the surface of his body for potential weapons. If he's attacking you, he means to hurt you badly. That's all the "weapon" you need to see to know it's better him than you.

However, I would caution you never to use the phrase "shoot to kill." Not because it isn't true or anything, but because it could destroy your case in a court of law. The best way to shoot is in a way that you know will stop the attacker. That just happens to be firing repeatedly into center mass, which is the most lethal way to do it. But for the purposes of legalese, it is important for the court to know that you were intending only to stop the attacker, and that you had no goal beyond that. You weren't out to kill him, just to make sure he could not take any further action toward you.

Technicalities like that can change a juries mind from "panicked victim" to "ruthless vigilante" in a heartbeat, because they don't understand that while the method is the same, the intent is something else entirely.

Shooting to stop is shooting to kill... but be sure to call it "shooting to stop" if you end up in court.

 

[Kitteh]

WHAT!?!?? What do you mean assault rifles don't have 300 bullets in a magazine!??

i'm gonna have to call hacks on that one.

 

[maturin]

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.

The force of a bullet hitting a body can't knock you over or even slow you down. It's a tiny little object. People recoil or fall over because, hello, their internal organs have suddenly been turned into ground beef. Stopping power is a misnomer and actually refers to a variety of secondary wounding effects, some of which are medically quite iffy.

And if you could knock someone over with a bullet, then you would shoot for the legs to trip them and knock them out from under them, just like a football player making a tackle.

Being hit by a .45 caliber bullet in terms of force transfer is like having a 1 pound weight dropped on you from 12 feet up. Not that impressive.

 

[Elementlmage]

So it's like Schrodinger's gun then?

Exactly, because the state of the object can never be know for certain, you ALWAYS assume that it is loaded, so that you reflexively handle it the safest way possible.

 

[Xero Scythe]

What exactly warranted this topic? There was not a single thing here that wasn't obvious.

I might direct you to the "Teen shot and killed..." thread in this very forum. But there have been others recently as well. This most recent thread just got my intellectual dander up a bit, so I decided to provide a one-stop shop for dispelling gun myths.

What about...safety catches? I know one should have them on at all times, but 1.5 seconds seems not enough time to fumble with the damn thing (Say at midnight like the teen mugger) and then fire. Suggestions? (Sorry if I seem ignorant- I tend to stay away from most guns like the plague.)

 

[MasterOfWorlds]

I agree with your points as far as morality and such goes. Legally, you'd have some issues if you ever made it to court. You have the whole property defense thing, which states that they have to be in your home or just about to enter it before you can shoot them. Warning shots are a no go for several reasons. First, as you said, every bullet needs to go somewhere. Second, if you shoot a warning shot, then have to shoot the person...that's just gone from self defense to premeditated murder.

The simple fact of the matter is this. If you pull a gun, you better be 100% sure you want to kill the SOB you pulled it on.

 

[MrHero17]

I appreciated this post, the Tuller Drill thing was a bit of news to me, not a surprise exactly but I didn't know there was a test for the situation.

 

[captaincabbage]

WHAT!?!?? What do you mean assault rifles don't have 300 bullets in a magazine!??

i'm gonna have to call hacks on that one.

I think calling shennanigans is more appropriate in this instance.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

Guns don't kill people, the government does...

 

[The Random One]

What I got from the OP:

If someone pulls a gun while within 21 feet of you, you can totally reach them and stab them before they can stop you.

Thanks, OP! You've signed my ticket to Valhalla.

 

[jonnosferatu]

The OP for this thread literally prevented me from account suiciding.

Wow.

 

[Xero Scythe]

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.

The force of a bullet hitting a body can't knock you over or even slow you down. It's a tiny little object. People recoil or fall over because, hello, their internal organs have suddenly been turned into ground beef. Stopping power is a misnomer and actually refers to a variety of secondary wounding effects, some of which are medically quite iffy.

And if you could knock someone over with a bullet, then you would shoot for the legs to trip them and knock them out from under them, just like a football player making a tackle.

Being hit by a .45 caliber bullet in terms of force transfer is like having a 1 pound weight dropped on you from 12 feet up. Not that impressive.

Have you ever taken Physics? If so you would know a .45 is pretty damn stopping. The Formula for Kinetic Energy is KE=.5M(V squared), where M is mass and V is velocity. Going at say...just 300 miles an hour, that bullet's got energy. And a 1 pound plate is a little more annoying than you think. One, that plate as you said is turning your insides to jam- now imagine 4 of those. I think that would at least slow people down.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

That was a good read. I enjoyed it, and will keep every tip in mind when encountering someone who wants to know more of the subject.

 

[Jeralt2100]

To the TC: Very correct reasoning on your original post. One thing I'd like to add, although it's just about as much common sense as what you wrote.

If you draw your gun on someone, you'd better be prepared to USE it. Sometimes the threat alone is enough to stop an attacker or make them run, and that's all fine and good. However, don't you dare bluff, as you're betting your life on that bluff. It goes without saying that if you draw your gun to bluff an attacker and they don't fall for it, chances are they'll get their hands on the gun you're holding and what are they odds that they won't kill you with it after you've threatened their own life? I'd guess they aren't good.

 

[Godhead]

This is an amazing thread. It's very well informed and anybody who ever thinks about handling a firearm should read this.

OP deserves an award.

 

[Elementlmage]

What exactly warranted this topic? There was not a single thing here that wasn't obvious.

I might direct you to the "Teen shot and killed..." thread in this very forum. But there have been others recently as well. This most recent thread just got my intellectual dander up a bit, so I decided to provide a one-stop shop for dispelling gun myths.

What about...safety catches? I know one should have them on at all times, but 1.5 seconds seems not enough time to fumble with the damn thing (Say at midnight like the teen mugger) and then fire. Suggestions? (Sorry if I seem ignorant- I tend to stay away from most guns like the plague.)

Depends on the weapon, if you have a Glock, you don't need to keep the safety on as it is striker-fired double-action(it isn't cocked until you pull the trigger). If you have a hammer fired pistol like a Sig or a 1911, you do need to keep the safety on. If you hit the hammer with enough force without the safety on, in WILL cause an accidental discharge.

If you have a Makarov and a special holster, you can walk around without a round in the chamber, and as you draw it, the holster will chamber one for you.

But, you are right, a safety does present a variable to the situation that can cause some serious foul-ups to someones game plan. That is why ANYONE who plans on carrying a firearm should train with it... a lot! A few hundred rounds should be the bare minimum!

 

[WanderingFool]

Wow, I would have figured at least one person would have disagreed... You knowledge has educated many of the people on this thread, including me. I took a hunting course when I was 14 (like all good Pennsylvania boys and girls) and this was something they drilled into our heads repeatedly; Treat the gun as it is always loaded, and never point it at anything you dont intend to shoot.

 

[Arcane Azmadi]

While all these facts you are stating are probably quite true, what you are ultimately saying boils down to this:

If someone jumps out in front of you on the street at night, the most appropriate response is to immediately draw your concealed gun, shoot them and not stop shooting them until you're sure they're dead.

Jesus wept.