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."

7 of 398 comments (clear)

  1. Bad summary by RealErmine · · Score: 5, Informative

    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!
    1. Re:Bad summary by mdarksbane · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is pretty important, and follows the police and self-defense literature I've read. It's a real concern for officers who might have a gun pointed at a suspect who draws and fires.

      Previous studies have shown that even though the officer should have an advantage, if they actually process what is being drawn instead of just firing, the suspect who began with a gun at their head wins most of the time. Reading some of those studies provided a whole new perspective on all of the horrible "cop accidentally shoots a kid with a toy gun" moments.

  2. 1645 called. by bigattichouse · · Score: 4, Informative

    Miyamoto Musashi established this phenomenon quite well in 1645. Book of five rings.

    Feudal Japan called, they want their news back.

    --
    meh
  3. Re:Unforgivable! by Translation+Error · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, in the last paragraph it concluded that the increased reaction speed wasn't great enough to offset starting later. The research team believes that Bohr, the man who conducted the first experiments on the subject and won every time when drawing second, was simply much better than his opponent.

    --
    When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
  4. Re:Unforgivable! by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, no, not if you've read the history of the old west. There were a LOT of black cowboys, perhaps as many as white ones, although you wouldn't know it from western movies. A cowboy himself was looked down on, it was a vocation you took if it was the only work you could get. And back then, damned near everyone was discriminated against. A laughable but realistic line from Blazing Saddles: "OK, we'll take the niggers and the chinks, but NOT THE IRISH!"

    They would have been far more predjudiced against the black man's wife, who was native American. Nobody was hated more than them, the Chinese came in a distant second, followed by the Irish immigrants.

    Now, had it taken place in the deep south rather than the northwest, you would be correct. In, say, Alabama a black man would indeed have been a "nigger". But in the plains, not so much.

  5. Re:Unforgivable! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 4, Informative

    All this blabbery is fine, except quick draw artists proved decades ago that there's no way in hell you can, in fact, outdraw someone by reacting to seeing them start first.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  6. Re:Unforgivable! by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Who wins" falls into another hollywood myth: that people fall down when you shoot them. They don't neccessairily. They may be shot several times and still returning fire.

    People don't fall down when you shoot them unless you destroy the nervous system (headshot for you gamer types) or they fall down because of the shock of being hit.

    Shock is a variable factor and can not be counted on to stop someone. Some people will fall down screaming after being shot in the arm. Others will absorb multiple shots that ultimately prove to be fatal, yet continue to fight until their blood pressure drops low enough that they pass out. The 1986 FBI shootout is a good example of this.

    There are only two surefire ways for a bullet to stop someone. It can destroy/disable the nervous system or it can cause enough blood loss that they physically can't keep functioning. The former is problematic because it's exceedingly difficult to hit such a small target when the adrenaline is pumping and your life is on the line. The latter is problematic because even if you destroy the heart or sever a major blood vessel, they will still have at least 15 seconds of willful activity before they are stopped.

    There's a reason why police officers are trained to shoot center of mass and to keep on shooting until the person goes down. Remember that the next time you see a headline like "Cops shoot man 12 times".

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.