Things You Might (Incorrectly) Believe About Guns

[Dastardly]

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.)

Totally fair question! The purpose of a safety catch is just to keep someone from unintentionally pulling the trigger. Some of them are basically a button or switch near the trigger, and other guns have it built into the grip (like Glocks). If this guy was carrying a Glock, which is popular for its dependability, the safety wouldn't be a concern.

The idea is that the safety is meant to interfere with "accidental" firing, but not to keep you from intentionally firing when you want to. A person who has a concealed carry permit has usually practiced at least a fair amount with the piece they're carrying, so that clicking the safety off becomes a reflex, just like turning a doorknob before you pull.

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.

Hehe, more accurately while they're stopping you

 

[Sinclair Solutions]

And now I know! And knowledge is power!

G.I. JOE!

 

[Dogstile]

Oh thank god for this, I assume this is because of that teen shot and killed thread? That really made my blood boil.

 

[Irridium]

God the idea of "shooting someone in the leg/shoulder is not lethal and not that bad" drives me fucking insane...

Anyway, really great thread. I'm bookmarking this one for future use in any gun threads that may come up.

Well done.

 

[MrSnugglesworth]

This has been super enlightening. Like, seriously, I am very happy you explained this to me and everyone here.

If you mind answering, how do you know so much about guns? Are you a police officer, army man, or just a guns enthusiast?

 

[BioHazardMan]

Why is it said that a gun is always loaded? I know it's the first rule of firearm safety, but why?

Same thing as they say in the military. "If you can't remember, the claymore is facing toward you"

 

[Jeralt2100]

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.

I didn't take that away from the OP at all. The scenario you present sounds more like a mugging than an attack. If a person on the street wants to attack you, and you're unaware of them, chances are you're already screwed. If they jump out and demand money, my first response isn't going to be to gun them down.

 

[wkrepelin]

Wow, I was expecting something . . . less. This is an excellent post. I can tell you as one that is well versed in Newtonian Mechanics that the references to force, energy and momentum are all right on. I did know most of this already but it's nice to see it being disseminated in such a clear and positive way. Cheers OP.

 

[Yossarian1507]

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.

Nice article, but I think this point needs addendum. While all you said is true, the (already poor as you said) accuracy after the first two shots decreases to really low level, so IMO the real solution should be 'shoot twice, aim, shoot twice, aim rinse repeat until the attacker goes down'.

Other than that, cool article. Too bad, in most of those cases you are forced to do all those 'myth' things like warning shots. At least in Poland, where I live (I know, since I'm going to be a cop, and unless you'll MAKE that warning shot, you'll be in some serious problems later... :/ There are ways to avoid this [like shooting afterward at the wall so the ballistics cannot check which shot was a warning and which wasn't], but still...). Also, correct me if I'm mistaken, but aren't hollowpoint rounds forbidden anyway?

 

[Choppaduel]

an armed & educated society is a polite society.

 

[Levi93]

I like this thread. I'm sick of hearing "shoot to wound" and all that rubbish about tailoring response to meet the threat (in under 10 seconds no less). You'll notice that it's always the people who have never been in a situation where they may not be going home who scream "ban guns!" the loudest. Very well said sir.

Don't suppose you could back up the "You'll notice that it's always the people who have never been in a situation where they may not be going home who scream "ban guns!" the loudest." could you? I want some proof.

 

[SuccessAndBiscuts]

That was a very enlightening read, though being raised with firearms I knew most of what was stated. It was still very good though, and reinforced some basic principles that many people forget and/or look over.

There really seem to be a lot of people on the board that actually do not know a lot of this, as evidence by replies in the thread about the UK guy that shot a mugger.

People believe so many things about firearms because movies told them so, and they use that "knowledge" to make judgments about people in the real world. It's upsetting.

I just want to point out that because of guns being much rarer here in the UK most of us never encounter firearms and as such have little or no understanding of them other than what we pick up from the media. Which is the cause of a lot of ignorance.

Having said that I am glad we have the restrictions in place we do here but I am very much aware that how things work in this country would not work in the US.

Still the article was a highly interesting read, especially considering I would like to try my hand at some variety of shooting at some point.

 

[Gilhelmi]

There is no such thing as 'accidental discharge'; a gun will not go off without pulling the trigger*. If you treat it as if it is loaded, even if you do pull the trigger by mistake, the bullet will not harm anyone -- because you're treating it as if it is loaded, and therefore following proper gun safety and keeping it pointed in a safe direction, right?

Most of the time

The Remington 700 model rifles sometimes fire by themselfs. There is a lawsuit going on right now. But you are correct

"Always keep the weapon pointed in a safe direction".

 

[WanderingFool]

And now I know! And knowledge is power!

G.I. JOE!

IT actually ...and knowing is half the battle!.

Unless they changed things on me... dammit! They need to send out memos or something...

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

Why is it said that a gun is always loaded? I know it's the first rule of firearm safety, but why?

That mentality has two reasons for existance:

1. So your not going to do something stupid and get you or somebody else shot. If you assume your gun is always loaded, you won't put it down or jokingly point it at a friend and it discharges.

2. If somebody is pointing a gun at you, you never question if there is a bullet in the chamber, so you don't do something stupid and get yourself killed.

 

[lSHaDoW-FoXl]

Educational, very educational. I actually didn't know half the things were just myths up until now.(I'm not a fellow that knows a lot about guns) I found the third myth most interesting.

 

[Sinclair Solutions]

And now I know! And knowledge is power!

G.I. JOE!

IT actually ...and knowing is half the battle!.

Unless they changed things on me... dammit! They need to send out memos or something...

No, you're right. I messed up.

 

[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.

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.

Even a tiny projectile is going to carry an awful lot of force once it's traveling near the speed of sound like a .45, but the round is probably going to go right through. That's why most of its force never acts on you.

And I'm certainly not lining up to get hit with a one pound weight, but arrayed against a running body, it's not nearly enough. If there's is an knockback effect, it's mostly insignificant compared to the big hole you just put in someone.

 

[Gilhelmi]

Very well done sir. I agree with everything but one point. Not only do hollow point rounds fracture in their target creating tearing little pieces, but they pancake the instant they hit you and they turn into a razor sharp wide piece of slicing metal. When the round enters your body it then proceeds to spin and rotate and the fact that the impact is spread out makes it tear alot more flesh than, say, an FMJ bullet which tears right through you. Of course, this makes the bullets much less likely to experience any sort of ricochet and is therefore used by cops to avoid collateral damage caused by ricocheting bullets. However, to say hollow points do not cause more damage is not completely correct. They do a different kind of damage, and against unarmored targets they create expansive exit wounds and turn their targets insides into churned pulp. Whereas a FMJ bullet will maintain a relatively straight course through its target and leave a smaller exit wound. Of course I have never seen an actual wound caused by a hollow point and all I have is my research and strange fascination with guns to back up my claims. So by all means, take what I say with a grain of salt.

This is all true, But none of it is the reason I carry "self-defense ammo" (hollow point). I use "SDA" because it does not pass through the target. I know that if I strike center-mass, the round will stop. Also, "SDA" will stop the enemy combatant in fewer rounds. I admit that goes to "it does more damage" but in the heat if the moment I want to end the situation with as few rounds fired as possible. Also, every, self-defense hand-gun expert that has given me instruction, has told me to use this ammo.

 

[sofaspud]

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.

That's not what was said.

The key words are "attack" and "stop"; if someone attacks you, you should use every method at your disposal to stop their attack. A single bullet, for any and all of the already explained reasons, is not a magic switch to make an attacker stop. Many documented cases exist of attackers not even being aware that they'd been shot.

To improve your chances of surviving an attack and IF you choose to legally carry a firearm, then the training you should have received, based on many, many case studies, drills into you the fact that you keep shooting until the attacker stops.

If that takes one, five, or fifteen rounds, you keep pulling the trigger until they stop. Once they stop, you run. Your objective is not to kill them; you're trying to make them *stop attacking you*.

If you don't feel that carrying a handgun is a viable or morally correct method of self-defense, that's fine. It's your choice. I personally don't carry myself, though I have my own reasons. But don't stretch so hard to read more into what was posted.