Why the First Cowboy To Draw Always Gets Shot 398
cremeglace writes "Have you ever noticed that the first cowboy to draw his gun in a Hollywood Western is invariably the one to get shot? Nobel-winning physicist Niels Bohr did, once arranging mock duels to test the validity of this cinematic curiosity. Researchers have now confirmed that people indeed move faster if they are reacting, rather than acting first."
Unforgivable! (Score:5, Insightful)
They explained that in Unforgiven
Wrter: "But what if he draws first?"
Sheriff: "Then he'll miss. You see, you can only draw, aim, and shoot so fast. Me, this is about as fast as I can draw my gun and hit anything smaller than a barn. The guy that keeps a cool head, he'll come out standing."
That was from memory and is obviously not word for word, but the gist is there. It makes sense to me.
Re:The mythbusters need to test this! (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? Real scientists have already confirmed it. Methinks someone just wants to see Jamie get shot on tv.
In movies, it's a Morality lesson (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the same reason that the guy on the roof of the saloon, aiming to shoot the someone in the back, always gets shot just as he's taking aim, and falls impressively to the street. Snipers and back-shooters are bad guys.
To quote Wyatt Earp (Score:3, Insightful)
"It's not the first man to draw who wins. It's the first man to hit his target."
Re:1645 called. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The mythbusters need to test this! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The mythbusters need to test this! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? Real scientists have already confirmed it.
Because the Mythbusters would dress up in cowboy costumes and play "high noon" music.
Corollary (Score:3, Insightful)
Did you ever notice that if a movie shootout occurs between a guy with an Uzi and a guy with a handgun, the guy with the Uzi always loses?
Han shot first (Score:3, Insightful)
...but Greedo drew first, so I guess the effect extends to space ruffians too.
Re:Bad summary (Score:4, Insightful)
The perp has something to lose - he could get shot. The officer has the added concern of accidentally killing someone for trying to pull out their license. Most cops I've heard speak after being involved in a shooting (even a legitimate one) seemed to consider that a lot more important than the paperwork.
The biggest difference is that the officer has to read and react, whereas the bad guy has a much simpler set of actions.
Re:The bad guy always loses (Score:1, Insightful)
He wasnt so good when he shot first, but he was redeemed through his actions in the series and turned out to be a not-so-bad guy. It could have very easily been finished by him leaving with the cash and Luke getting assraped by his father as he made the shot that killed the Death Star. Guess those guys did well enough in the screen tests to make it to the sequel.
Better counter-example - Liberty Valance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Unforgivable! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The mythbusters need to test this! (Score:3, Insightful)
So, I guess the subject got shot by the comment, since it drew first?
Re:Unforgivable! (Score:2, Insightful)
What I suggested was that black people were referred to as niggers in the old west, which is true, though you seem to think it isn't. See bleeding Kansas.
Re:Bad summary (Score:1, Insightful)
I think you misread the post. The way I read it, it's the officer who has the gun pointed at the suspect, from a distance. Even taking into account that they already have their weapon drawn and ready to fire. If their suspect makes a move and the officer waits to see what their suspect is pulling out of their pocket to make sure that they really have a weapon before pulling the trigger, the officer is dead meat.
That's the way I read the parent post anyway.
Re:Unforgivable! (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps they will do a follow up on how there can be a huge running firefight with automatic weapons and virtually no cover, and yet nobody from either side gets hurt.
The GI Joe cartoon in the 80s frequently had full-on military battles-- with aircraft, artillery, armor, missiles and lasers-- and nobody got hurt, ever.
Even as a kid, I didn't buy it. "Oh come on, EVERY jet pilot's parachute opens? EVERY tank crew abandons the vehicle before it blows? No way!"
Re:Unforgivable! (Score:3, Insightful)
Most ranges explicitly disallow holster draws or other quick-shoot scenarios
Where are you that "most" ranges disallow this? Most of the ranges around these parts sponsor IDPA and IPSC events. Holster draws and quick-shooting are the whole point of such competitions.
"Cops shoot man 12 times" (Score:3, Insightful)
"Cops shoot man 12 times" Of course, when you hear that the 11 shots were made by an officer kneeling down and holding face down a Brazillian electrician, those facts you bring up become a lot less relevant.
Re:Oblig. (Score:2, Insightful)
Interesting, but [citation needed]
Re:Corollary (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably close to true in real life as well unless the Uzi wielder has had training and extensive practice. Uzi's, like most automatic weaponry, fall victim to muzzle climb. In a nutshell unless you know WTF you're doing anything past your 2nd or 3rd round is going to be seriously off target.
Re:Unforgivable! (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Unforgivable! (Score:3, Insightful)
You guys are idiots. Arguing over which gun is best to stop an intruder, when in reality it'll be which gun your son accidentally blows his sister's head off with.
That's why there's this fancy new technology, called locks. They open containers called safes. Perhaps you've heard of some of these recent scientific advancements?
There's also another method, it's called parenting. This doesn't seem to be real popular these days though. It's usually outsourced to something called 'television'.
Re:Unforgivable! (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why we need public service announcements on TV during Sesame Street telling kids not to play with Mommy and Daddy's guns.
Cookie Monster can tell them "cookies are a sometimes food, fatty".
Oscar the Grouch can say "Even if you're mad or are trying to impress someone, guns aren't to be played with or pointed at people."
No parenting necessary!
Re:Unforgivable! (Score:3, Insightful)
Shot twelve times, let me just remind you of innocent bystanders and the effective lethal range of un-aimed bullets. Each and every shot presents an additional risk of shooting some innocent bystander, a child, someone's grandmother, a father blithely working in a building down the block or a mother in her kitchen. Twelve shots in completely unacceptable in an urban environment.
Aimed accurate fire, one shot and one shot only and, if they are not absolutely certain of that shot and, under no other circumstances should that shot be taken. Hollywood styled covering fire whilst of limited facility in the battlefield should absolutely never occur in policing. Any officer who fire 12 bullets at an assailant should immediately be fired as they represent to great a risk to be allowed in public space with a fire arm (either for being a crap shot or some trigger happy whack job).
Every single shot fired by an officer needs to be justified, every single one and a penalty needs to be applied for each and every unwarranted shot. Those in charge of delinquent officers should also suffer severe penalties, of late getting promoted seems to be all about getting additional money with zero additional responsibilities and with consequences for being a completely incompetent political appointee.