Avoiding firearm myths

[Phyrebrat]

Whilst researching if you '*ock' a rifle or not, for my Apr 300 story, I came across this interesting article.

Ridiculous gun myths

pH

 

[Null_Zone]

It's a rather sad little hobby I have watching films and shows but I love to count the number of times people chamber cartridges with pump action shotguns. Yes the sound is meant to be intimadting and undelines a point but I would love someone to just turn to the shotgun bearer and say "so we have been wandering around this zombie infested warehouse for 20 minutes and you've only just got your weapon loaded?" or just comment that now they have chambered seven cartridges and the damn thing only holds six.

 

[Ursa major]

I know nothing about guns -- because TV shows and films have been my only sources of (mis)information -- but it had always bothered me that when someone pulled a gun, got the upper hand and only then did that (unnecessary, it seems) action that's supposed to make it a weapon than a rather odd-shaped bit of portable sculpture (all of this within range of the their adversary), they were showing more hope than judgement.


(Actually, thinking about it, I'm sure Alistair Cooke -- of Letter from America fame -- once mentioned on his programme that someone holding a gun, but not their adversary, should not get too close to that adversary because the time taken to aim the weapon properly would also be enough time to have their gun-holding arm pushed away. I'm not sure I'd want to try this, but it seemed to make sense. Perhaps the narrowness of TV screens back then forced the actors to stand too close together to get them both in shot.)

 

[Captainwhizz]

Knowing the mistakes not only allows you to include correct gun usage, but also to deliberately have characters display poor gun knowledge, and have it impact upon the story, such as other characters taking advantage of it.

 

[Susan Boulton]

A good friend of mine, who is a Falkland War vetern once told me, "People don't fly backwards when shot. They just drop, like a puppet with the strings cut."

 

[Vertigo]

I have always been annoyed by the lack of realism on guns in films but that's show biz for you!

Incidentally the link above from Phyrbrat, misses the first three myths. Here's the link to the first page: 5 Ridiculous Gun Myths Everyone Believes (Thanks to Movies) | Cracked.com

 

[Ray McCarthy]

A good friend of mine, who is a Falkland War vetern once told me, "People don't fly backwards when shot. They just drop, like a puppet with the strings cut."

Yes, otherwise the person shooting would fall over backwards harder first!

 

[J Riff]

Well Hollywood is really really interested in displaying gunshot death... there's thousands of graphic examples now. Like they spend a lot of money making it look real. No idea why, seems like a really bad thing to glorify. Maybe they should hire some writers instead of special FX freaks.

 

[KyleAW]

Nothing worse than awful scenes in films where people walk closer and closer to their enemy while holding a gun. Seriously? You have a weapon with an effective range of hundreds of yards, why would you get within arms length??

 

[Bodhi]

For those wondering about laser guns:
livescience.com/19181-laser-guns-reality.html

 

[Nick B]

Whilst somewhat humerous (and yes hollywood does take the pi**) dont forget that movies, fictional books and so on are entertainment, not education. The writer of that article also doesnt take account of weapon loads, calibre and other vital points.
For instance - bullets go through car doors. Do they? Which bullets? A 9mm parabellum? Yep, it probably would. A .22 saturday night special? Pretty much not.

The key is, if you want realism, do your research. If you are writing colourful entertainment, do what you want. The reader will decide whether they enjoyed it.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Big V8 engine between you and the guy with gun ...

Also car doors are perhaps lighter and thinner than 1950s or 1930s

if you want realism, do your research. If you are writing colourful entertainment, do what you want.

I think there has to be a balance, where the majority of readers don't have a failure of suspension of disbelief. It depends on the genre too. A normal 20th C. / contemporary spy or detective or romance isn't expected to have unicorns or whatever, it should seem realistic.

Fantasy and SF, even space opera needs to be at least internally consistent in some manner even if at level of Frogs and Princes.

EDIT
P.S. It's hard to make a petrol tank and even harder a diesel tank explode, especially if full (hot day and less than half full might be easier) without some sort of incendiary shell. You just get a hole.

I wonder though about the lithium batteries of a Tesla or other electric car. If overheated they can explode and/or self "burn" without additional air.

 

[Vertigo]

Don't get me started on exploding cars in films. I've come to the conclusion that all American cars have some sort of a built in "Explode On Impact" device.

I remember in a garage I worked at in the seventies one guy demonstrating with a puddle of petrol. He threw a lit cigarette into it and it just fizzled and went out. I'm not saying that would happen every time but you do need the right sort of petrol air mix to get it to blow.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

all American cars have some sort of a built in "Explode On Impact" device

Only one model of Ford Pinto.

He threw a lit cigarette into it and it just fizzled and went out.

A really hot day and it will go like a dog before it hits puddle. A shallow spill is more likely to not put out the cig and woof.

I remember in 1970s a factory that stored barrels of Benzine (for cleaning new parts prior to fluidised bed epoxy dip!) beside the incinerator (which was like a giant BBQ). I guess that's three things you couldn't do today.

Really cold mornings the lorry drivers lighting little bonfires under their fuel tanks (summer grade diesel and colder than average UK weather, I bet you don't see that in Newfoundland or Norway).

 

[Nick B]

I agree with a realism consistant with your work. If you have sci-fi zap guns, disintegration beams and death rays then you are pretty much ok for whatever. If your technology is a future vision with expansions upon current knowledge then you are more limited.

And yeah, getting a cars petrol tank to blow up involves fire, not bullets.

 

[Vertigo]

Only one model of Ford Pinto.


A really hot day and it will go like a dog before it hits puddle. A shallow spill is more likely to not put out the cig and woof.

I remember in 1970s a factory that stored barrels of Benzine (for cleaning new parts prior to fluidised bed epoxy dip!) beside the incinerator (which was like a giant BBQ). I guess that's three things you couldn't do today.

Really cold mornings the lorry drivers lighting little bonfires under their fuel tanks (summer grade diesel and colder than average UK weather, I bet you don't see that in Newfoundland or Norway).

Agreed I remember him being very specific; the more petrol the less likely to go off. As you say though it's more likely to light the vapour above the puddle.

And I believe even with winterised diesel they still need to light fires under the tanks in northern latitudes. In fact don't they have heaters in the tanks? I know in Finland they all have mains leads on their cars to plug them in on timers for pre-heating the engine before it's needed and a lot of car parks have plug in points for just this purpose.

But we drift off topic!

 

[HareBrain]

I've come to the conclusion that all American cars have some sort of a built in "Explode On Impact" device.

Referenced to glorious effect in several Simpsons episodes that feature exploding bicycles etc.

A good friend of mine, who is a Falkland War vetern once told me, "People don't fly backwards when shot. They just drop, like a puppet with the strings cut."

And especially they don't fly up off the ground! Yet so many films feature this. It makes no sense even to someone with a child's understanding of gravity. Why aren't their makers embarrassed?

 

[WaylanderToo]

Nothing worse than awful scenes in films where people walk closer and closer to their enemy while holding a gun. Seriously? You have a weapon with an effective range of hundreds of yards, why would you get within arms length??

errrrmmmmm just to be pedantic 3 letters - WWI. Then to add to the pedantry look at the Eastern Front in WWII where there were massed infantry attacks getting closer and closer to the oppo with guns....

Even one on one hitting a target from waaay out is not easy

 

[KyleAW]

errrrmmmmm just to be pedantic 3 letters - WWI. Then to add to the pedantry look at the Eastern Front in WWII where there were massed infantry attacks getting closer and closer to the oppo with guns....

Even one on one hitting a target from waaay out is not easy

You know I was referring to the oft used film cliche, not the necessity of historical gun usage.

 

[The Ace]

I do know that Clyde Barrow and his gang never owned a Thompson, "Chicago typewriter," because it couldn't reliably penetrate a car door. He preferred his, "Whippet Gun," a modified .30in (7.62mm) BAR for its firepower.

Amazingly, the 4ft 11in Bonnie Parker also preferred the BAR - a weapon almost as big as she was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1918_Browning_Automatic_Rifle