Things You Might (Incorrectly) Believe About Guns

[Exort]

Not all of your arguments sound that convincing to me. Shooting a bullet in the air seems like a perfect warning shot to me. The bullet will have lost an immense amount of speed due to air resistance. It should be a lot slower when it reaches the ground. Maybe even slow enough not to pose a threat.
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.

There are cases where people actually got kill by bullet aimed toward the sky (you know they actually will fall back to the ground at 9.8 m**2/s). Also good luck aiming for the feet.

 

[calebcom84]

I come from alaska, break into any house around while someone's home and you've got a 50/50 chance of getting your brains blown out.

Hence why robbery is lower in the US than the UK.

Great, we have less robberies. (citation needed)

Murder rate in the US is 3.9 times higher than the UK. I think I'd rather be robbed than killed, wouldn't you?

Or maybe you'd like to take back the truly asinine suggestion that gun laws are the most important factors (or even anywhere close) determining crime rates?

Didn't say it was the only factor, but it's kinda a coinkidink that when guns are taken from LAW ABIDING citizens, crime goes up.

Do a quick google search. Here ya go, took 2 seconds http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/latest/2010/08/03/robbery-rate-worse-than-us-study-115875-22461265/

And hey I'm all for putting down murderers like rabid dogs. I don't see them as much different.

 

[maturin]

I read an amusing story about American troops in Baghdad taking cover in their bases after soccer games ended, so as not to get hit by the 7.62 rounds raining straight down out of the sky.

Bullets are so light I don't think they would be terribly dangerous even at terminal velocity (the old penny from the Empire State Building problem), but a warning shot fired at a low, arching trajectory could certainly come down with enough horizontal velocity to kill you.

 

[calebcom84]

I read an amusing story about American troops in Baghdad taking cover in their bases after soccer games ended, so as not to get hit by the 7.62 rounds raining straight down out of the sky.

Bullets are so light I don't think they would be terribly dangerous even at terminal velocity (the old penny from the Empire State Building problem), but a warning shot fired at a low, arching trajectory could certainly come down with enough horizontal velocity to kill you.

Mythbusters proved a bullet fired straight up won't kill you, however a shot fired past someone? Past the guy, into a house, through a thin wall, into some innocent kid.

It's why I use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaser_Safety_Slug

 

[calebcom84]

Guns are for cool people and not pussies.

See how incorrect I was.

LoL my wife has a little pink handgun, it hardly qualifies as 'Cool.'

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

I once thought that it took a lot of effort to pull a trigger, until I accidentally discharged a gun...

You're very lucky that nobody was hurt, but at least you did the right thing afterwards. The trigger pull (amount of force required to cause the trigger to fire a round) of most semiautomatic handguns is typically between 3 1/2 to 5 1/2 pounds. This isn't nearly as much as it seems.

 

[bl4ckh4wk64]

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

Many people actually don't know these things are myth and they spout them as fact in favor of banning guns.

 

[AvsJoe]

I'm a little late to the party so most people won't see this but...

Required reading for this thread: http://www.cracked.com/article_18576_5-ridiculous-gun-myths-everyone-believes-thanks-to-movies.html

[snip]

Thank you, dude. There is nothing I appreciate more than gaining information that could one day save my life. I hope to never have to use this information but I'm glad to have it.

 

[acturisme]

dastardly, I salute you in your efforts to educate the populace of the escapist.
That's all I wanted to say.
Thank you.

 

[CrazyMedic]

The other types of non-lethal ammunition are usually loaded in 12-gauge shotguns. Not the self-defense weapon of choice.

three things
1. awesome article very well put and infomative in the specifics even if the broad ideas are kinda common sense.

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?

3. May I ask what your qualifications are, I mean are you a police officer an enthusiast or what.

 

[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