Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why the First Cowboy To Draw Always Gets Shot

Posted by timothy on from the more-guns-less-crime dept.

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."

40 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.

    --
    Free Martian Whores!
    1. Re:Unforgivable! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      So Han Solo Did shoot 2nd! heh :D

    2. Re:Unforgivable! by ViViDboarder · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is the opposite of what the article is saying...

      The article says that the first person to draw will be the last one to pull the trigger, but the one reacting (drawing second after seeing the first person draw) will draw and pull the trigger quicker but they are less likely to get a hit.

    3. Re:Unforgivable! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Just my opinion though...my apologies if that is way more stupid than it was in my head.

      No worries. The only thing you might need to apologize for is the use of the cringe-inducing pseudo-word "prolly" in an otherwise coherent, grammatically-correct, and typo-free post.

    4. Re:Unforgivable! by wurble · · Score: 3, Informative

      I used to think that was true insight into the reality of the world. After seeing Unforgiven, I viewed all the scenes of quickdrawing and such from old westerns as Hollywood bs impossiblities.

      Then I saw some of the things guys like Bob Munden and Jerry Miculek can do. Jerry Miculek can draw and fire 5 shots on target in under 1 second. I've seen Bob Munden split a playing card in half by shooting the thin edge FROM THE HIP. That means no aiming, just draw and fire from the hip. I've also seen an exhibition shooter draw, fire 6 shots, 3 targets, 2 on each target with a single action revolver all in under 3 seconds. Go shooting at a range some time and have someone time you. You'll be SHOCKED at how fast that is when you try to put yourself in that scenario.

      However, these are examples of the best in the world. Hardly typical. So for MOST, Little Bill's advice is correct.

    5. 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.
    6. Re:Unforgivable! by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Funny

      Seems odd, and just a tad self serving, for Unforgiven to have an explanation for a cheesy writer's ploy

      It's obvious you never saw the movie. There was a damned good reason it got all those Oscars. It was realistic and believable, a VERY well written flick. Few movies at all are as good.

      As a nerdy bonus, Saul Rubenik played the writer; he was on an episode of ST:NG.

      As a double bonus, it has hookers.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    7. Re:Unforgivable! by roman_mir · · Score: 5, Funny

      that's not a Troll, that was clever.

      Didn't you see what the parent did to the grand parent? Grand parent drew first, then parent responded with a more precise comment.

      I think grand parent is dead now, Jim, killed by the AC.

      --
      You can't handle the truth.
    8. Re:Unforgivable! by Sechr+Nibw · · Score: 5, Funny

      Jayne: "Don't much see the benefit in getting involved in strangers' troubles without a upfront price negotiated."
      Book: "These people need assistance. The benefit wouldn't necessarily be for you."
      Jayne: "S'what I'm sayin'."
      Zoe: "No one's gonna force you to go, Jayne. As has been stated -- this job's strictly speculative."
      Jayne: "Good. 'cause I don't know these folks. Don't much care to."
      Mal: "They're whores."
      Jayne: "I'm in."

    9. Re:Unforgivable! by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This was my one experience with it in paintball.

      It came down to me and one person from the other team.

      I and a single shot gun and he had a machinegun. But to be cute, they let him use a second machinegun from a dead person on his side.

      I was behind a 3' tree. He was running towards me rambo style with both guns going from his hip.

      I *calmly* leaned out one one knee, took aim, and shot him with one shot in the chest from about 25'-30' away and then leaned back behind the tree so some stray ball wouldn't hit me.

      He probably fired 10 shots while I took my one but they were all at the tree and over my head and off to my right into the bushes.

      I have no gun experience and don't play tons of paintball. And I'm about as big as a barn.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    10. Re:Unforgivable! by JerryLove · · Score: 3, Informative

      All things being equal: the one who draws first with the intent to shoot shoots first.

      "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.

      On the other hand, as many police-shootouts will attest, actually hitting the target isn't all that common.

      So the study is interesting; but it has nothing to do with a firefight.

    11. 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.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    12. Re:Unforgivable! by pcolaman · · Score: 5, Funny

      Apparently Jack Bauer was not factored into the equation. In less than 8 days (seasons) he has killed almost 100 people.

    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Re:Unforgivable! by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As someone who has spent his life around guns, as well as spent many a day out shooting with a professional marksman (man you should have seen his competition pistol, seven changeable barrels and deadly accurate) the problem isn't the speed, it is the nerves.

      You see, when you are standing there staring at a man that could quite likely kill you it makes you more than a little nervous, and thus more likely to pull the trigger instead of squeeze. If you just jerk on the trigger like that it is more likely to go wild, and if you are nervous and trying for max speed you might even squeeze too early and have the shot go low. In those single action revolvers that gives your opponent plenty of time to drop you clean. Trying to outdraw that professional marksman I found that while I could pull faster in about 1 out of three tries, when you looked at his target and looked at mine my shots were all over the place and his were grouped right in the kill zone.

      So I would have to agree with the findings. In drawing a weapon, especially a pistol where it is easy to have a non kill shot or miss altogether, accuracy is FAR more important than raw speed. And as for quick draw artists, it was probably quite a rare occurrence to run into a Wild Bill or Wyatt Earp and much more likely to end up against the drunken cow hand with a bad attitude.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    16. Re:Unforgivable! by JMandingo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A bunch of buddies of mine played paintball in the woods, and after months of nagging I bought some cheap used equipment and joined them. My buddies were high school jocks, and one of the guys they played with had been in the army. The army guy sized me up and made a snide comment, and when they picked teams I was picked last and ended up on the team opposite him. That very first game I personally knocked their entire team out.

      In the months that followed I played with them many weekends, and everyone soon acknowledged that I was the deadliest player there. I has shot real guns previously I was as accurate a shot as I could be with my cheap paintball marker. More importantly I have read a lot of WW2 books and I have played a lot of first person shooter games and I had a good layman's understanding about suppressing fire and flanking. Often I would let the rest of my team rush in first to draw fire while I moved around the edge a bit to study the other team's positions. Many of my kills were a single shot from the side or from behind at very close range while the target was otherwise distracted. Even when a match was down to one on one, once I got the opponent to duck behind cover I could approach their position obliquely, keeping him suppressed with bursts of fire, until I had the angle to get in a kill shot.

      Then one weekend came where a bunch of serious "speedball" players joined us. My tactics weren't any good against them, because they could not be suppressed. They would use cover VERY well. They knew to return fire regardless of being under fire, exposing only the nose of their gun and just enough mask to get one eye down the sight. They were vigilant about constantly scanning for movement, so I could not flank them without running through a hail of paint balls first. Their expensive guns had long range were very accurate. That day was humbling.

      --
      Vonnegut was right: Of all the words of mice and men, the saddest are, "It might have been."
    17. Re:Unforgivable! by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Even shots to the head don't necessarily stop unless you've taken out some part of the brain

      There was a Japanese fighter pilot in WW2. He mistook a torpedo bomber (from the USS Enterprise no less) as a fighter. He walked right into the line of fire of both rear gunners and took a .30-06 to the head. It blinded him in one eye and paralyzed half his body but he still managed to fly his plane home and land it in one piece.

      Never underestimate what the human body is capable of.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  2. BANG! by stillnotelf · · Score: 4, Funny

    Does that mean the first poster gets shot? Wait, why am I bleeding...?

    1. Re:BANG! by Bryan+Gividen · · Score: 5, Funny

      You really shot yourself in the foot with that non-first post, didn't you?

  3. Must be joking by TwiztidK · · Score: 5, Funny

    This must be why people can think up a comeback before I'm finished with the original joke.

    --
    Sent from my iPhone 5
  4. 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. Re:Bad summary by Weedhopper · · Score: 3, Informative

      Gun at their head? This is a massive procedural mistake and an error of the first order.

      I've taught several different types of courses to different LEOs. If the target is close enough to touch you, you will simply not have enough time to react to hit your target. A lot of officers don't understand this until it's demonstrated to them with simunition.

    3. 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.

  5. The mythbusters need to test this! by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The mythbusters need to test this!

    1. 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.
  6. 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
  7. Re:Oblig. by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Hans' hot first"

    AKA "How I Learned To Enjoy Wookiee Lovin'"

    --
    Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
  8. 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)
  9. Re:Oblig. by hansamurai · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It was always the intent of George Lucas to have Luke Skywalker and Obi-Wan ride on Greedo's ship, The Manka Hunter, but Harrison Ford was cheaper than keeping famous actor Paul Blake around (who demanded more money for sitting in a rubber suit most of the day) so he decided to rewrite the script to have Han kill Greedo instead of the other way around.

    --
    Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
  10. Re:Oblig. by jollyreaper · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Hans' hot first"

    AKA "How I Learned To Enjoy Wookiee Lovin'"

    You came in that thing? You're braver than I thought.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  11. 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!
  12. Re:well - YA. Wyatt Earp even said so by PPH · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you can shoot accurately from the hip. People who participate in quick draw competitions practice this. Otherwise its a wasted shot.

    You've also got to size up your opponent. There are times when a first, wild shot will psyche them out, so they'll miss. And then there's your equipment. If you can get multiple shots off fast, a first, low probability shot is worthwhile. You can correct your sight picture and fire again. Old cowboy guns were largely single action pistols. Re-cocking and firing a second time was difficult.

    And if your opponent is holding his piece sideways, it means you've got all the time in the world. Because he can't shoot worth shit.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  13. 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

  14. Re:Oblig. by Minwee · · Score: 4, Funny

    You came in that thing? You're braver than I thought.

    Get in there, you big furry oaf! I don't care how it smells. GET IN THERE!

  15. Re:Oblig. by jbezorg · · Score: 4, Funny

    That day, Palpatine was amazed to discover that when Vader was saying "As you wish", what he meant was, "I love you." And even more amazing was the day he realized he truly loved him back.

    ( Just burning off some real karma with this one )

    --
    I've lost all my marbles except one & It's fun to test angular & centripetal acceleration in my skull
  16. "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.

  17. Re:eastwood movies by myowntrueself · · Score: 3, Informative

    Fistfull of Dollars.

    Its an amazing scene. The one where he is complaining about them laughing at his mule, then he kills them all.

    If you watch Clint you can almost see what he is doing while he is talking with them and making the joke; he is rehearsing his shots in his mind while keeping them occupied and laughing at him, going through the motions he will need to execute to draw and pull off a shot at each one. One-two-three, one-two-three then *bang* he executes the action in a single perfect moment.

    He doesn't just draw and shoot; its immaculately practiced internally before being put into action. Thats how you draw first and win.

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  18. Having relatives in law enforcement by gillbates · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

    1. The cop can't arbitrarily shoot someone, so he can't fire until fired upon (*according to cop-movie semantics.)
    2. The criminal doesn't want to get shot by the cop. But since the cop hasn't fired yet, the criminal (who is pre-disposed to shoot cops) can now take more time to aim and get a shot that will most likely be lethal instantaneously.
    3. Having both drawn their weapons, the cop cannot de-escalate the situation without the criminal's consent; the cop is betting the criminal will somehow be more easily persuaded to relinquish his weapon with a gun pointed at him.
    4. The criminal now holds all the cards. The cop - by not firing - has signaled to the criminal that he can take his time, aim well, and squeeze off the opening round.
    5. The police officer will not even hear the criminal's weapon fire before being struck by the bullet.

    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.