Things You Might (Incorrectly) Believe About Guns

[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).

 

[Ziadaine_v1legacy]

If it takes you 1.5 seconds just to pull the gun up your not quite a fast slinger, then again thats not ment ot be the intention of it to begin with so I'll stop on that.

One thing I notice with firearms is thinking the recoil is less then that of which it is. Made that mistake a few times with .22 Rifle as a kid.

 

[Fangface74]

I'm curious about the term 'lock & load', does it exist or is it more movie crap?

Does it refer to loading (obviously) then putting the safety on?, or chambering a round? If it's the latter why does it come before 'load'?

Please enlighten me, and while I could just google the answer, I like this thread

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well that are very good points for a serial killer.

But I did hear some people use them for protection and not with the intent to kill everything that moves.

 

[Mr Pantomime]

That was n interesting read. Ive never actually used a handgun before. Rifles sure, not handguns. Would it be better to carry a knife for protection?

 

[havass]

Things You Might Incorrectly Believe About Guns:

The Desert Eagle is the choice pistol for anyone and is much better than any other pistol!!!11!

Desert Eagles are sleek, cool...and very much overrated. Even in the smaller .357 / .44 Magnum variants, the pistol's weight is around 1.7-1.8kg due to its predominantly metalloid construction, which is incredibly heavy for something you'll be holding in two hands. They're also much longer than regular pistols, and physics dictates that they would hence be more difficult to hold up toward a target. Also, you can't put a suppressor on a DE. You'd probably be better off using a 2kg MP5K, which offers fully automatic / 3-round burst fire with a 15/30 bullet magazine...and it's only around 30-40cm long.
By comparison, a standard size Glock weighs only around 600-800 grams, and have significantly larger magazine capacities of 15 each, as opposed to the Desert Eagle's meager 7. More bullets = more chance of hitting a target. And then there's the massive kick from firing a .50 caliber round. Not many would be able to handle repeated kicks like that for 7 rounds straight with any decent accuracy.

 

[ZephrC]

The formula for the force of a collision is mass times velocity divided by time. This means if the mass is low it can be compensated for by either increasing speed or decreasing time.

And bullets move really effing fast though the body, so the TIME negates the otherwise great momentum of fast-moving projectile.

Umm... that's divided by time. As in, the more time it takes, the less damage done. That's a big part of why bullets do so much more damage than a good solid punch even though there's similar amounts of force involved. That's really just a nitpicky point as someone else has already pointed out that isn't even the formula used to figure stopping power. I just thought I should point that out.

Other than that, I mostly agree with you, but there is one other thing I'd like to point out. One bullet certainly won't instantly stop a charging attacker, but the force involved is not insignificant, so the force of half a dozen hollow point rounds impacting a target can contribute quite a bit to stopping them in their tracks. Perhaps even more so than the internal organ damage over the very short term, depending on the exact circumstances, and since the very short term is what we're primarily concerned with, the stopping power of a hollow point round should most certainly not be discounted.

 

[Aurgelmir]

Some of those are not myths. And you failed to state in what regard they were myths.

A police officer will have a different code of conduct than say a Marine. The same goes for country to country.

You shoot the legs if he is coming at you with something other than a gun, because all you need to do is stop him.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

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

Apparently you haven't read the thread about the jogger shooting the mugger.

So many people making huge, angry rants about how he could have gone for a "non-lethal" shot, or something crazy like that.

Well thank you, OP. It was getting really annoying having to explain this to people.

 

[Levi93]

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.

What's the matter? OP's post too airtight to take on for ya? Of course I can't pull cold hard numbers on something like that. If you want to count that as a small and petty victory for anti-gun activists you are of course welcome to do so.

OK so I'm admitting to being a little bit 'anti-gun' but "small and petty victory" you make it sound like they're doing a bad thing, you know... Trying to get killing machines out of civilian hands who claim they have rights to own due to a piece of paper wrote over 200 years ago? Oh and what do you mean by "OP's post too airtight." he's not making an arguement he's just pointing out some facts and missconceptions about guns, and you'll notice that he doesn't go into detain of the amount of shootings in America compared with other countries with stricter gun control.

Actually I don't even know why I'm arguing, I live in the UK where the gun controll is
strict and I can walk to the other end of my street without having to worry about getting shot, just seriously keep your stupid out dated second ammendment in America

Funny how you say to get guns out of the hands of civilians abiding by the law and not criminals. Criminals are big threat, not the civilians.

I do agree with you that criminals are a big threat but to me the biggest problem is the ease of access, I mean you can just walk into a store to buy a weapon making them easily accessable to everybody.

I'm all for civilians having weapons but there should be various gun licences and ammunition licenses in place so that if you want a gun you would have to go out of your way and apply for licenses so that there is some restrictions.

For example take the recent shootings in Arizona, I can't help but feel that if there was a stricter gun control that these deaths and injuries may not have even happened, I mean the guy just randomly opened fire into a crowd killing 6 people and injuring 12(sorry if these numbers are wrong).

For a quick comparison the last major gun crime here in the UK (that i know of) happened in july last year, the gunman was called Raoul Moat and he had a simple break-barreled shotgun, he shot a police man in the face and blinded him, his ex-girlfriend in the stomach(she survied) and his ex-girlfriends then current boyfriend once in the leg and a second time in the back of the head, he was then cornered in a field by police in a 4 hour or so period of time of him sitting with his gun to his head which ended up in him getting tasered and him shooting himself in the head. And then a couple of weeks later the officer in charge of the field stand off commited suicide.

Now that was in July last year where as on the other hand I hear a couple of gun crime reports every week in America.

Another some what random note, police in Manchester when on duty are required to wear a bullet proof vest but are not allowed to carry a gun, seriously WTF, this is one of the few times i feel the are a little bit too restricted.

Oh and finally I regret what I said about the bill of rights so, apologies for that, what i said was waaayyy to trollish for my liking.

 

[Jonluw]

Snippolainen

Hi, just in case noone has linked you to this yet; here's an article you might find entertaining: http://www.cracked.com/article_18576_5-ridiculous-gun-myths-everyone-believes-thanks-to-movies.html

I don't really have anything else to say, because I have no intention of debating guns and gun-laws, sice that is one of the single most tiresome debates in the world.
And not least; it isn't relevant where I live.

 

[Dastardly]

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.

It can be, yes. More and more places are coming around to the "stand your ground" model, when it comes to attacks. Because the difference is whether you're being robbed or attacked. If you're JUST being robbed, they're simply asking you for your money... possibly under threat. But you give them the money (or throw it) and then try to escape the situation. It's not okay to shoot someone who stands back and says "Hey, gimme your money."

But once there is physical contact, or they are moving in for physical contact, there is physical danger. Whether they're after money or not, it has become an attack. At this point, there is no longer any reason to assume the attack will stop when the perpetrator has the money (or whatever). This is why "just get away" doesn't work--they are not robbing you, they're attacking you.

 

[Dastardly]

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.

There are situations where we have to separate the concept of "responsibility" from "fault." If someone dies because they charged a cop with a knife and the cop shot them, the cop is responsible for killing that person... but not at fault in the death. They did not create the situation that led inexorably to that person's death.

There are some cases where, looking back, we see how the situation could have been handled differently, and how the cop could have prevented the situation from escalating the way it did. Training can't cover every possible outcome. When that happens, we ought to be free to talk about what the cop is responsible for doing, and what other cops are responsible for doing in the future. But that doesn't mean we always throw fault on the cop.

 

[Dastardly]

So to review: ideally one should fire multiple shots at an attacker just to be on the safe side even if they have no visible weapon, and since we're not all crack shots and should assume that most shots fired under duress will miss*.

Please understand that our tendency to miss is not why we fire multiple shots. We fire them because even hitting the target doesn't guarantee they'll instantly stop. For instance, cops are trained to fire at least three shots--chest, chest, head. The purpose of the gun is to stop the attacker, and that hasn't been accomplished until they've stopped.

That said, yes, we tend to miss.

However, shots fired into the air pose an unacceptable risk to innocents and bystanders, and can and do kill people up to a mile from the scene.

There's a very troubling inconsistency here. Why shouldn't the latter be assumed of all those rounds being squeezed off at an attacker? Especially since we're assuming (wisely, as you note) that some significant portion of them will miss? Do the rounds that miss not pose an unacceptable risk of harming bystanders, or innocents far from the scene?

There's a difference between firing directly at the attacker and firing into the air. Yes, there is always the potential for someone to get hurt, but I'm simply saying that a person should never intentionally fire away from the target. They would be intentionally visiting risk upon others.

I mean, I get that at least the rounds you're spending in firing towards the attacker are at least potentially contributing more concretely to self-defense than the far more uncertain option of the warning shot -- but if we're assuming, as you direct us via the Tueller Drill, that any attacker can close with you fast enough from 20 feet to render the range advantage of a pistol essentially moot, 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)?

Please understand that pepper spray and tasers are not close-range measures. Pepper spray requires a considerable distance unless you also want to spray yourself. Both of these are non-lethal apprehension tools, not self-defense. They are used by cops who already have them drawn and ready when a subject is at range, meaning they've come into the situation prepared. In an attack, this isn't the case.

And stun guns of all sorts carry the risk that you'll be in contact with the person you're stunning... and in doing so, you'll stun yourself. These are useful if you have the element of surprise (in which case it's not an attack).

[small](* You do note, it would seem wisely, that this is mostly for cops... but then undercut this by going on to talk about how this rule actually makes most sense for civilians who can't assess whether there really is a weapon in play or not. So it actually sounds like, despite your caveat, you're prescribing this as a methodology for civilians.)[/small]

I think there was a misunderstanding somewhere. What I said was "mostly for cops" is the idea of drawing your weapon on an opponent that is farther away--that is to say, usually cops are the ones that have that advantage, since they go into the situation knowing there is a crime occuring.

Firing multiple shots is proper use of a handgun, regardless of "cop or not." One bullet won't stop anyone. Even a headshot. There are police training videos of men with huge holes in their heads, still able to move around and pose a danger. The person is "dead," but the body is still a threat. Fire until the target stops.