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."

25 of 398 comments (clear)

  1. Unforgivable! by mcgrew · · Score: 4, 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.

    1. Re:Unforgivable! by rbgaynor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While it's true that open class USPSA (IPSC) shooters use "space" guns there are plenty of very good USPSA shooters who shoot something that closely resembles stock guns (production, revolver). Jerry, for instance, shoots double action revolver. As just an average USPSA shooter I can draw and hit six separate steel targets, one shot each, in under 4 seconds. Equipment helps, but the top USPSA shooters have more going for them than just equipment. The research is interesting, but if I had to draw against the guys I regularly shoot with I would not want to be the second guy clearing leather (well kydex actually).

      --
      "Good things don't end with eum, they end with mania or teria." - H. Simpson
    2. Re:Unforgivable! by ricosalomar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know there were a lot of black cowboys, Nat Love is perhaps the most famous example. I have read the history of the old west, and never in my post did I say that there weren't a lot of black cowboys.
      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.

    3. Re:Unforgivable! by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2, 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!"

    4. Re:Unforgivable! by Shakrai · · Score: 2, 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.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    5. Re:Unforgivable! by mr_bubb · · Score: 0, 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.

    6. Re:Unforgivable! by Shakrai · · Score: 2, 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'.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    7. Re:Unforgivable! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, 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!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    8. Re:Unforgivable! by rtb61 · · Score: 2, 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.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  2. Re:The mythbusters need to test this! by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why? Real scientists have already confirmed it. Methinks someone just wants to see Jamie get shot on tv.

    --
    "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
  3. In movies, it's a Morality lesson by The+Famous+Druid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)
  4. To quote Wyatt Earp by hey! · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "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.
  5. Re:1645 called. by oodaloop · · Score: 2, Insightful

    God forbid the scientific community should research something a samurai once said.

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  6. Re:The mythbusters need to test this! by Rennt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nothing wrong with it at all, just ask Brandon Lee.

  7. Re:The mythbusters need to test this! by swillden · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why? Real scientists have already confirmed it.

    Because the Mythbusters would dress up in cowboy costumes and play "high noon" music.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  8. Corollary by Trip6 · · 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?

    --
    I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
    1. Re:Corollary by Buelldozer · · Score: 2, 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.

  9. Han shot first by OglinTatas · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...but Greedo drew first, so I guess the effect extends to space ruffians too.

  10. Re:Bad summary by mdarksbane · · Score: 3, 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.

  11. Re:The bad guy always loses by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  12. Better counter-example - Liberty Valance by tomhath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  13. Re:The mythbusters need to test this! by noidentity · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Subject: The mythbusters need to test this!
    Comment: The mythbusters need to test this!

    So, I guess the subject got shot by the comment, since it drew first?

  14. Re:Bad summary by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  15. "Cops shoot man 12 times" by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  16. Re:Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Interesting, but [citation needed]