Slashdot Mirror
Why the First Cowboy To Draw Always Gets Shot
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."
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.
Free Martian Whores!
Does that mean the first poster gets shot? Wait, why am I bleeding...?
First draw!
Han shot first.
This must be why people can think up a comeback before I'm finished with the original joke.
Sent from my iPhone 5
Just like the article predicted.
Dear
"You ain't shot!"
Free Martian Whores!
Did the submitter or editors read the story? At the end they plainly state that even though the second "shooter" reacted faster, they could not make up the difference in time.
Dewey, you fool! Your decimal system has played right into my hands!
Is that your six gun in your pocket or did you just shoot first?
So if Han shot first it's because Greedo was already drawing his pistol.
a long time ago that there is a 3/4 second delay from seeing to reacting. So, if you wait to see the other start to draw you need to be at least 3/4 second faster in drawing and shooting to make that up.
The mythbusters need to test this!
The article mentions that this could be used therapeutically, but up till now all the trials have been abject failures with 100% mortality as patients with brain damage have terrible aim.
Maybe they didn't like artists back in the wild west, after all it's a bit gay...
Basically if you have trained and know your weapon you fire faster if you don't think about it, it's a reflex thing and I have personally experienced the accuracy portion of this, meaning; if I know my rifle I can shoot without little or no thought/concentration and I am generally more accurate.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Miyamoto Musashi established this phenomenon quite well in 1645. Book of five rings.
Feudal Japan called, they want their news back.
meh
Before he died, Wyatt Earp was interviewed where he admitted he was no where near the fastest draw - but he pointed out that being accurate with your first shot was by far the most important criteria
mas cerveza, por favor politically incorrect stu
It's also an issue of fast vs accurate. Drawing your gun quickly and snapping off a shot may make a bang but your goal is to hit the mark. Taking a smidge more time to actually get a kill shot can make a big difference.
It also helps to have the script writer and director on your side as well as your name on the marquee...
Any karate practitioner could have told you this. Intercepting a reverse punch with another reverse punch is one of the most common tequniques, especially among more traditional karateka.
No smoking sigs indoors.
The guy who draws first is the agressor, we can't let the agressor win.
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.
Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur (anything said in Latin sounds important)
It turns out the black hats the bad guys wear makes them easier to hit.
Not true.
Han shot first and he's a good guy.
SHUT UP!! HAN SHOT FIRST DAMMIT!!!
Stupid Lucas.
You must not have seen Battle Beyond The Stars. Cowboy died in that movie, and he was the good guy!
Free Martian Whores!
"It's not the first man to draw who wins. It's the first man to hit his target."
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Jon-Erik Hexum would like a word.
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
You can probably survive being shot long enough to take your time aiming and putting a bullet in the other guy's chest or head anyway. Of course, a movie that ends with both duel participants slowly bleeding to death from poorly placed shots doesn't make money like Hollywood fantasy duels do.
Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
You seem to be forgetting the whole reason _why_ we all got so mad that Lucas changed that... It was because it showed us that Han _wasn't_ a "good guy" (because good guys only shoot in self-defense).
In Hollywood movies, the bad guy always draws first, and the bad guy always gets shot. QED
Simple human reaction time to an external stimulus is 0.05 to 0.20 seconds, depending on the type of stimulus - tactile, audial, visual, roughly in that order.
That .75 seconds that your brought up may have included decision trees because simple human reaction time to simple stimuli is much, much faster than 3/4 seconds.
Subscribers getting the FP is little more than sanctioned cheating, just so /. can rake in some dough.
Han shot first. He lived. Theory debunked.
They've already had this duel. Adam's the one who's gonna get shot.
And BTW, that crack about "Real Scientists?" If you Observe, Hypothesize, Test and Repeat, then congratulations, you're a Real Scientist(tm). You need to remember to leave the door open for the patent clerks, the mud-covered mathematicians, the Idaho farmboys, and the peasant bastards...
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
We got mad for Lucas changing it because it reduced the impact of Han Solo's character growth from a "grey hat"... amoral mercenary and smuggler... to a "white hat" hero of the rebellion.
I have no idea who got mad with Lucas for Han shooting first. It was a clear establishing shot of Han Solo as a badass.
That's a lie. I remember 1 Eastwood flick where he drawed first and killed everyone.
Bohr never drew first but won every time
That indicates to me that the opponent is just slower by nature. It doesn't mention if they had the later test groups try both sides, but I wouldn't be surprised if they didnt.
For example, if I was in that test with my parents, I could be half asleep and turned the other direction when they started and I would still probably beat them.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Seems like there would be an interesting followup experiment. Arrange it so that one participant *actually* draws first, but *thinks* the other guy drew first, and see who 'wins' in those situations? Because, the experiment seems to suggest this a brain/nervous system reaction to perception, not anything based on actual objective physics or anything. If that is indeed the case, then the actual facts of the situation shouldn't matter, only that which is perceived/believed.
For a start, "traditional" karateka are not traditional. They're a 1940s phenomenon.
Second... Intercepting a reverse punch with a reverse punch? Who on earth is going to throw a reverse punch at you?
If you read anything the guys from the earlier era said, it basically amounts to "Don't start a fight, but if trouble is inevitable, put the other guy down first." The alternative interpretations are modern "bushido" bullshit.
Deleted
The truth is that the duel at "high noon" is a myth perpetuated by spaghetti Westerns. An actual quick draw expert can shoot you several times and re-holster his weapon before you even have time to blink. It only takes about 20 milliseconds for them to get a shot off, while human reflex time is typically about 150-300 milliseconds. A real gun slinger could kill you even if you had already drawn your weapon and had your finger on the trigger. With such a person facing off on main street would be laughable.
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?
I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
Bad-guy schmad-guy. Han had a gun pointed at him.
Even in California, this is justification for using deadly force in your own defense.
Making Greedo look stupid does no credit to Han.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
...but Greedo drew first, so I guess the effect extends to space ruffians too.
More music, fewer hits
From the study:
"participants were forced to wait a variable, non-signalled delay before initiating the movement. If participants released the home key too early, a tone sounded and the trial was aborted."
Couldn't it be that initiators were conditioned to hesitate because going too early was punished?
I dunno..
Of course, in my Kendo class the one who tried to strike first was usually the one that lost.
...the space cowboy who shot Greedo in self-defense ;)
Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.-rms
I knew it!
I am not afraid of being shot at. As long as I did not draw my gun no one is going to die!
but not the deputy
Who says Han is the good guy then?
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.
Not to say there might not be other explanations, but I think the storyline is primary. People will only pay for a story they "like". Movies are commercial enterprises, expensive to make and requiring financial justification. Art is secondary but the most talented producers, directors and others know how to bring art in effectively.
> You must not have seen Battle Beyond The Stars.
Odds are WAY high in favor of that! ^_^
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance is a better example of the real reason - it's the bad guy who gets shot. Lee Marvin (bad guy of course) baits James Stewart (good guy of course) into a gunfight. As Stewart draws his gun, knowing Marvin would win the gunfight, John Wayne (hero of course) shoots Marvin from across the street
He fell first so someone shot him but according to this theory, he must have drawn or shot first.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
The poster is timothy. He almost always misunderstands the article. Posting a summary that directly contradicts the conclusion of the article is basically his SMO.
That settles the Greedo thing.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
This concept of the second party reacting faster is pretty well documented in martial arts circles. When I was into karate I remember it being pointed out time and again that a relaxed defender almost always reacts faster than the attacker. Probably because the attacker is more aggressive and more tense.
Han took great care to polish his "Bad Boy" image from time to time.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
You must not have seen Battle Beyond The Stars. Cowboy died in that movie, and he was the good guy!
And if you didn't see the movie, count yourself as lucky. Not the worst ever made, but close. Very close.
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
"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.
Actually the loser is the first man whose heart stops beating.
ACTUALLY, the loser is the person whose brain is sufficiently deprived of oxygen first.
See what I did there. I won because I took my time.
"Oh, it's an old trick. You did it pretty well - not real well - but pretty well. You feinted with your left shoulder, getting him to go for his gun, while you were goin' for yours with your right hand at the same time. It's an old Arizona trick; but I... I have seen it used as far north as Montana." -- Jason McCullough, "Support Your Local Sheriff"
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
Even in California, this is justification for using deadly force in your own defense.
Sadly, in Arizona, this is not justification for using deadly force. Only if that is your only option. If you have the ability to escape, you are required by law to take that action instead.
SIG FAULT: Post index out of bounds.
I don't know how you'd reproduce this in a clinical environment, but IRL, if someone starts to draw a gun, it's going to trigger a fight or flight reponse and pump you full of adrenaline. Maybe the person who's doing the drawing isn't serious, while for you it doesn't even process the event at that level: it's just reflex.
Pushing 3 buttons on a computer in response to a box changing color doesn't seem like it would trigger the same response at all -- that box isn't exactly threatening your existence. And I assume in the real case, you've got a bunch of experience firing a gun to the point where doing so is pretty subconscious...unlike the box case, which requires fine motor control, but you have 0 practice doing.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
Good to know that it's been scientifically proven but in martial arts it's been well-known since a long time and there are even martial artists who master (?) the art (pun ?) of striking first faking a reaction: you picture your opponent attacking first even tough it's not true and you hence create a "fake" reaction which enhance your striking speed. Casus clay was doing that. Lot's of chinese Kung-Fu practionners do it too. It requires skills but it works.
When was the last time a cop was arrested for a 'bad' shooting?
Yeah, there may be a lot of "legal mumbo-jumbo" for the cop to deal with if he shoots someone. But real consequences anywhere *near* being on par with losing your life (e.g. a long jail term) -- that's something American cops simply don't have to worry about.
a still scene, likely no sound too. It's 2 guys standing still at the beginning. Basically he sees no activity.
He has less knowledge of the situation/environment, and his reaction is controllable in the brain as it's his conscious decision to fire first...
The second person that shoots, sees:
a person moving, sounds, movement, the knowledge that a gun is firing at him. Basically he sees activity. As since his brain is typically set for an unconscious reaction (by anticipation), he'll response faster since he'll have more information about situation by default.
Since the 2nd person has more information of the two (he's sensing, the 1st person is not), he responds faster.
The one who moves first is 'moving' (in place). That bit of action focuses the eye of a responder and gives them a better visual target than the first guy has. If you stand absolutely still when someone shoots you, you don't present as good a target as if you are moving your arms or making some motion (but not large enough motion that it would throw off the other person's perspective of your center of target.
It's like bull fighting -- if you stand still with the red-cape, the bull may or may not go at you or the cape. But if you wave the red cape, the bull goes after the target that is moving.
Our visual system is designed to pick up *differences* faster than 'sameness'. The motion of drawing the gun would often generate a 'difference' in an opponent's visual field, thus providing a better target.
At least that's my observations....I suppose I could read the article, but they are just researchers.
What do they know? :-)
-l
I have cop relatives. On more than one occasion, I've heard said that police are trained not to draw their weapon unless they intend to use it.
And when you think about it, it makes little sense for an officer to draw a gun and make an armed criminal *more* nervous. That is, unless he intends to put a bullet in the criminal.
Think about the typical cop-criminal standoff in the movies. Both point their guns at the other, but no one fires. Why?
In short, a cop gains no tactical or situational advantage by drawing his weapon but not firing. In real life, the movie standoff doesn't end with the criminal laying down his gun; it usually ends up much worse.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
"Researchers have now confirmed that people indeed move faster if they are reacting, rather than acting first."
I have no doubt they have. It couldn't have been too difficult since the fact that behavior practised to the point of automatic response produces behaviors that are faster than novel behaviors that require cognitive effort in planning and execution and in monitoring the behavior in progess has been well understood for decades, and practised in sports and warfare for centuries.
What's next from this golly-gee-whiz path of scienterrific discovery? Why, I'll bet they're going to try to tell us that such automated behaviors are carried out via processing in that wrinkly bit of brain way in back on the bottom. Yeah, that one that we know for certain is the radiator for our blood so we can keep our bodies from overheating.
It's obvious why this is called research. Because once it's discovered examined and understood, anybody can re-search for it, looking for it again and again, every time being more and more certain to be right. Us scientists call it replication, or at least testing a principle in another context. But writers who don't have to get it right or apologize for being wrong can call any result An Amazing Discovery. Is it just to sell the piece or because they're just ignorant of the subject? Probably plenty of both.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
why the first to draw gets shot.
Hollywood wants perfect heroes. Where there's action (which is where Hollywood wants to be), you'll only find horrible murderers. But Hollywood wants to show you something else: A Hero, an Honest, ethical man.
All soldiers are murderers, no matter what country are they from. Same thing for bad boys in the wild west. And for cops, bank robbers, CIA agents, etc, etc.
So, they justify their actions. The hero only shoots because the other guy was trying to kill him, and it was just self defense. Also, he's "doing it for the greater good". Take a movie like Spygames. Robert Redford and Brad Pitt are CIA Agents that have killed several hundred people. And still, they are shown as the good guys. On the other hand, they let us know that the bad guys are the Chinese, because they talk fast and different, and their voices are not dubbed in studio to stand out over the background noise. Not even once they give us the chance to see them as humans. They are imprisoning a woman that killed over 200 people in a bombing, yet she's a Hero and they are scumbag.
Same thing happens in the prototype of all this action films: Cowboy movies. They need to tell the audience who the guy bad is: The first drawer, and how the other guy is a Hero because he was just defending himself.
That's all there's to it. And even if it happens to be true that first drawers get shot, any similarity with real life is a pure coincidence.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
I always thought this was about the fact that the bad guy always draws first(because he's evil and wants to kill people) and the good guy always wins.
The good guy can't draw first because he's supposed to be avoiding the conflict and trying not to kill anyone.
...and that is all I have to say about that.
http://jessta.id.au
for The Fast Draw(tm).
The Hot Shots hit balloons at 3 or 4 yards (I don't think it was 7?), from the holster, with single-action, in way under a quarter-second. Winning time of the meet I saw on TV was, IIRC, 118 mS. Shots are fired from the hip, without any time-consuming ritual of lifting the sights to your eye.
While this is nowhere near as fast as Gene Wilder in Blazing Saddles, you will NOT react to this guy fast enough to avoid getting shot. If he draws first, you're dead.
Exceeding the recommended torque is not recommended.
.. in Westerns, the guy who draws first is always the bad guy. And the bad guy always loses. Easy. But this isn't remotely new. Consider a Samurai battle. Two Samurai might face each other for hours, without actually striking, waiting for an opening. Any attack inherently offers an opening, particularly when you're using the same two-handed sword for offense as well as defense. In "A Book of Five Rings", Miyamoto Musashi teaches the concept of alway remaining focused but relaxed in an encounter, and counter-attacking simultaneous with the original attack. This is used very heavily in Aikido, which is a martial art based entirely on defense/counter-attacks (I practiced it for five and a half years).. you basically blend with the motion of an attack, hopefully making the attack ineffective. Sure, it's much harder to learn than some other martial arts, and we don't get to break boards. But we do get to practice with weapons. Of course, Musashi also created niten'ichi, the two sword technique (one katana, one shorter sword, the wakizashi, which were originally recycled from broken katana). Even better to defend and counter-attack at the same time.
-Dave Haynie
Somewhere on the way this story changed from telling this:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18463-draw-the-neuroscience-behind-hollywood-shootouts.html
to saying the opposite. Perhaps people didn't read it closely enough?
If you've got a gun pointed at your face, I'd say your chance of escape is low enough to warrant shooting the bastard, even in a place with less-than-great gun laws. It's still the US and not Europe (where, in many countries, shooting to kill if you could shoot to wound is illegal and you may only shoot if he shot first).
A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
What I find more interesting, it that this is presented (by the scientists, reporters, editors, whoever) as suggesting that Hollywood has been accurate, instead of been mostly interested in the best theatrics.
What a depressingly stupid machine.
Yes, it was bad; VERY bad. It's one of those movies that if you watch it stoned you'll laugh your ass of at how bad it was. Bad writing, bad acting, bad special effects (especially the sonic effects), bad directing, bad costumes, bad everything.
It's bad even compared to an average B movie.
Free Martian Whores!
I'd rather be alive, facing charges, than a law-abiding corpse.
The law should recognize that once someone has a gun pointed at you, you have already lost control of the situation. It doesn't really matter what you do, because the other guy could fire at any second and you will be dead. In the face of that threat, I believe ANY defensive action is warranted, deadly or not.
I absolutely agree - but I think it's really absolutely terrible that in quite a few countries you're charged with murder when all you did was defending yourself, and that they call themselves "civilized" for that.
A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
Google OODA Loop. You may react faster, but you will still be slower.