Things You Might (Incorrectly) Believe About Guns

[Sovvolf]

Well matey, with the combination of cracked articles, my own research and reading T.V tropes, there's few misconceptions I have about guns. I know sniping is more a game of maths, having to judge wind, distance, speed, recoil and a bunch of other stuff that would probably make it a really unpopular weapon of use in call of duty if it was portrayed realistically. I know suppressors don't silence your gun to the point of at 'pfft' sound and such... So yeah many misconceptions have been flushed away.

 

[RaphaelsRedemption]

I'm from Australia, and therefore avoid many of the US-dominated gun discussions here on the Escapist.

So when I clicked on this thread, I genuinely didn't know what a good post I was going to read. Thank you. I've learnt something new today!

 

[brunothepig]

I have bookmarked this. Now on a thread with these misconceptions I can just direct people to this.
I still don't like the level of gun control in America, but I agree that if you are in a situation where you need to use a gun in self defense, the above arguments are all valid.
Weird thing is, despite me and my friends/family being mostly anti-gun, I always thought of most of the things you said as common sense... Until I saw or heard people arguing with them...

 

[OldRat]

...why wouldn't you default to non-lethal close range tools like pepper spray or (especially) a taser instead? It seems to me that given the parameters you've outlined, and since range would really have been the only reason to prefer a pistol in the first place if your only objective is to stop the guy, this would make more sense. Especially for non-cops (I take it the point about multiple shots is "mostly for cops" since we're hoping have they a relatively smaller chance, at least, of accidentally killing someone unrelated to the incident with a stray shot)?

Pepper sprays and tazers have been proven to be far from magical "use against bad guy, bad guy will be comically flopping in the ground like a fish or impotently clawing at his blind eyes now" devices. A tazer requires contact for a few seconds to have an effect (if he's trying to stab you, he can and will), while pepper spray needs to be aimed at the eyes (which isn't exactly inconspicious and quite possibly blocked). Moreover, a pepper spray might not be enough to stop the attacker even if it works and does blind him, provided he gets a grip.
There have been many cases of people trying to use, and badly failing at, using tazers or pepper sprays thanks to the confidence of popular culture giving the impression that they're instant, foolproof subjugation devices that will stop anything dead in it's tracks. They really, really won't. They're better than nothing, but if it fails you've only managed to piss your attacker off more, or have possibly already gotten stabbed or shot as retaliation for your own retaliation.

On the other hand, while a gun isn't perfect either, I can guarantee you it's easier to stop an attacker with that than a can of pepper spray or a tazer.

 

[vento 231]

I got a question, how easy is it for a handgun or rifle to go off just by dropping it? does it depend on the type of gun?

also technically was the difference between a shot gun and a rifle?

You can drop one of a skyscraper and it won't go off if there isn't a round in the chamber. (not cocked)

 

[mjc0961]

Thanks TC. A very interesting read. I learned quite a lot.

Also I get why aiming for the leg is the same as aiming for his guts. But what about his feet. I think you can safely immobilize a person like that.

If you think you can hit the feet of a moving target, go for it. Granted, even you say you only think it will stop them, so even if you do manage to actually hit them in the foot, you don't know that it's actually going to help you.

2. why wouldn't a shotgun not be a self defense weapon of choice from what I understand shotguns are very good close range weapons and can probably put people down in one or two shots and if most attacks happen at close range and it does not require as much aiming compared to say a pistol would it then not be the best weapon?

Well, I assume the basic problem is that this thread seems to be dealing with a situation where you're out on the street and someone is trying to attack you. In which case, I'd have to imagine that it's not terribly easy to get the legal right to carry around a shotgun with you in public. And even if you could, you can't really conceal it (shotguns are generally large), so basically you'd be walking into the bank or the grocery story with a shotgun and basically just scaring the shit out of everyone. No, I don't think walking around day-to-day life with a shotgun is a good idea. Although I don't really know much, if anything beyond what the TC posted, about this subject, so maybe I'm wrong. But if I had to guess, that would be it.

 

[Eadd]

Stating quite a few opinions as facts there perhaps

 

[Khada]

Things You Might (Incorrectly) Believe About Guns:

1. They should exist.

 

[photog212]

A very good topic, that should be read by all people on any jury for any lawsuit against the police.

I hate it when the police shoot a criminal, and the family sues. They did their fucking job.

In most cases, definitely.

In other cases, sometimes it's not that the cop was wrong for shooting, but rather that the cop could have acted differently to prevent the situation--like getting too close to a subject before drawing, inadvertently causing it to be a close-range encounter. In cases like this, however, the cop just needs mandatory time off, mandatory training and recertification with the firearm, and perhaps a reprimand on the record.

The cop isn't at fault, but hindsight shows how they could have done things differently. We should create a system in which we allow people to learn from these situations, rather than throwing the blame at their heads. That causes them to be afraid of those situations, and more likely to try to hide it. Not only is it bad for them, it's bad for the people who could have learned from (and prevented) that mistake in the future.

The cases in which a cop clearly draws and fires for no good reason a extremely rare, and the other cops are just as shocked and disgusted as anyone else.

And this is where we have a disagreement.
The reason we have an armed police force and not just handing out guns at every corner, is that the police are supposed to use restraint. That is why we spend money (I'll admit could be more) training them, finding new methods and technologies.
To outright suggest that the cop "isn't at fault" is kinda ridiculous (maybe biased?). It would be truly amazing if we lived in a world where the police were ALWAYS good and in the right, but unfortunately that world doesn't exist. The police should be just as accountable as every one else, no exceptions.
I'm not saying the cop is always wrong, but you have to admit the cop is not always right.

 

[Choppaduel]

an armed & educated society is a polite society.

And an armed & uneducated society are a half-step above a pack of wild baboons.

indeed

 

[FFHAuthor]

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.

I commend you for the effort in this thread dastardly. Ther's a great deal of ignorance about firearms and firearms laws in the United States. The vast majority of it; willful ignorance.

 

[Poptart Invasion]

Snip

he could probably speak for himself better than i could. but i will say that while i strongly believe in the Second Amendment, you shouldnt own a gun unless you are trained to use and care for the weapon (cleaning, safe storage, etc). an untrained civilian could be more dangerous than the original aggressor.

other people have spoken to the rest of that better than i could have.

 

[Cmwissy]

I knew most of this stuff already, but it's always good to learn some more...although, I think the biggest fallacy when it comes to guns is that if "Everyones armed, we can protect ourselves!", I've heard this so many times from people, it goes something like this "A black guy has a gun and he's about to shoot my wife, I should have a gun!".

I'm not exactly anti-gun ownership, more pro-common sense.

 

[Angryman101]

Pepper sprays and tazers have been proven to be far from magical

Nobody said anything about "magical."

A tazer requires contact for a few seconds to have an effect

No, it requires a few seconds to completely incapacitate someone. Not to "affect" them; that takes about half a second. (I would quite agree that pepper spray is way chancier; that's why I said "especially" the taser.) Now, this is presumably the same few seconds it takes to squeeze off multiple rounds with the handgun which, remember, we're supposed to be firing multiple times because we can't count on the first, second or third round to hit when firing under duress, and which poses an unacceptable risk to bystanders long distances away even when fired into the air and not laterally. The attacker isn't stabbing you while you're firing the handgun either? It would seem to me you have about the same chance of incapacitating the attacker -- or not -- in a few seconds, but a far higher chance of getting done for involuntary manslaughter by picking the handgun.

The effectiveness of tazers are entirely dependent on the brand and voltage used, as well as the size of the attacker. If you were going up against a scrawny little punk, then a tazer would work quite well. However, if you were up against a larger opponent, you'd have to have a larger voltage for it to be effective, which could be fatal or cause lasting damage if that same voltage is applied to a smaller target.
There's also the issue of multiple attackers. A tazer has, at best, a few charges (most consumer products only have one), and they're usually the kind with the wires which have to be reloaded after every fired shot.
I'm extremely pro-gun only because I believe that the citizenry should be allowed to arm themselves to topple a government if it becomes too oppressive; the self-defense aspect has always been a secondary consideration of less importance. I still support it but...eh. I don't care that much about it. People spout off about how much higher the murder rate in the U.S. is compared to the U.K. or whatever and tout it as this huge, important figure, but gun-related deaths only number somewhere in the 100-300 per year in a population of 300 million. That is incredibly tiny.

 

[gbemery]

2. ...you should fire a warning shot first.

I like to think the first shots fired toward them, regardless if they find their mark, as the warning shot. If he doesn't drop his weapon and cease his threatening action then he has ignored said warning shot.

5. ...you should try to get away first.

This one though I have heard is kind of a gray area in different jurisdictions. I have heard (from a judge, officers and public defender) that if you have any access to leave the situation then you must first try before you are legally allowed to take lethal action.

 

[Wolfenbarg]

Things You Might (Incorrectly) Believe About Guns:

1. They should exist.

You really don't see the advantages of having a projectile weapon anywhere throughout history? Was it better when we used the barbaric means of slashing people with swords or clubbing each other to death? Seriously, be reasonable. Technological advancement of weaponry built up a deterrent for generations that prevented constant states of war like we used to see in the world. Yes, there were the world wars, but those were inevitably stopped by a bigger weapon. Eventually that all led to the new way of preventing wars by use of economics and trade, but it was a long road in getting here, and I find it hard to believe that you see guns having no value in the world in that regard.

We are human beings, animals chained by a code of nature that we will never be able to suppress for as long as we continue to exist. One part of that code is survival. For some people that will always mean taking from others, and it is immoral to suggest that the rest of us should not have the means to fight back.

2. why wouldn't a shotgun not be a self defense weapon of choice from what I understand shotguns are very good close range weapons and can probably put people down in one or two shots and if most attacks happen at close range and it does not require as much aiming compared to say a pistol would it then not be the best weapon?

There are cases where people have defended themselves in home invasions with a shotgun, however it's not the preferred weapon. Shotguns and rifles are built with a specific purpose, and that is to hit targets at a distance. Because of that, they were extremely unwieldy in close quarters combat. If you are defending a room and have something between you and your attacker like a bed or something, then a shotgun is perfectly fine. However, if someone kicks your door down and your children are in the other room, the method of wielding a shotgun exposes you to attack more than a handgun would.

 

[ReverendJ]

Excellent thread, sir. Hear, hear, gun safety and knowledge. Too many people have so little experience that they're terrified of the things, and it leads to all kinds of screwiness (like aforementioned lawsuits).