Common Misconceptions

[Vy'drach]

Saving Private Ryan (athough could be argued as focusing on one group)

EDIT: To clarify the silencer point I made earlier. You can't just put a metal tube on your assault rifle or a coke bottle on your uzi and have it wisper quiet.

I do hope you aren't try to take what I said long ago out of context again. I said Saving Private Ryan was probably the most realistic portrayal of combat shown in a movie, not of events. Doesn't matter what the time period or who the combatants are, fighting will be that fucked up at least, if not more.

And of course you can't just put a metal tube on the end of your gun and expect it to be quiet. That's like saying you can't put a lawnmower engine in your car and expect it to run. They're not made for that. A silencer or a suppressor is not simply a metal tube.

Here's the full story on them, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressor

But in short, it traps the gas long enough that it's pressure and velocity are reduced so it doesn't make as much noise. How much noise is made is depending on several variables, but the MP5SD and De Lisle Carbine are two weapons that have eliminated bullet sound to the point that the loudest thing the gun does is the metal on metal of the action.

And as for the coke bottle, there are several makeshift suppressors, a soda bottle stuffed with steel wool being one of them, but if you were speaking of the scene from Shooter, that was a .22 rifle, with .22 being probably the smallest bullet out there. It's not particularly loud as it is, and a soda bottle probably would make it near silent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.22

Also, when you said guns don't rattle unless they're poorly made, that is also untrue. The American Thompson M1A1 is rather loud when you move it, as is the M16. Most rattling is probably from loose swing swivels, which can knock against the gun when you move it, and make a rattling noise. And I can guarantee that belt-fed weapons rattle. Rather obvious, but you shouldn't make sweeping, generalizing statements.

[Sabre]

That seems like a completely different point than you brought earlier, though. I though you were saying a firearm can not be completely silent with a silencer.

Right. I assumed it was impossable, but I have since been proven wrong.

However, the general misconception of a movie style silencer still stands albeit corrected. You cannot take a normal gun, put a metal tube or a coke bottle on the end and have it be wisper quiet which is still a misconception. Hence the clarified correction.

Rather obvious, but you shouldn't make sweeping, generalizing statements.

Of course. I believe you are the one taking my point out of context. Again, it is a case of people believing the movies. In this case it's the bad arse 'click' seen in games and films when the hero points a gun at things. My exposure to guns is limited though, but the thread is common misconceptions. ie. Things that are wildly considered true when it is not.

[Fira-Astrali]

Examples? Other than Pearl Harbor, WWII movies aren't coming to mind. I've also never heard this one. I had always been told that America helped win the war, but that it was a group effort of all the allies.

The Enigma and The Great Escape are another two movies that portay Americans doing amazing shit in WW2 that they didn't actually do. The Great Escape was originally a Canadian story, and I believe The Enigma was British, not sure though

There is an overriding theme that the American's won the war for the allies, because of their portrayal in the movies. No American wants to see a war movie about the Russians or the Canadians, they want American heroes.

[Sabre]

Not seen Engima, but wikipedia claims it's about the British in Bletchley park (Which is where one of the first computers was invented/built) but having not seen the film I can't say.

No American wants to see a war movie about the Russians or the Canadians, they want American heroes.

India (technically under British rule at the time iirc) was also a big player. If you are ever looking up WW2, check out the africa campaign. Being the open desert meant that they couldn't hide well, so had to use all kinds of crazy deception.

Anyway, it's not just fiction. Real American 'losses' that are not dramatically nobal also make them annoiyed. When the Japanese went to war with America, they did so under the knowlage that with there current status they could only delay the US for about 6 months. Japan lasted 5 months before they started getting their arses kicked. If you believe the intent of pearl harbour was a delaying tactic then it technically worked. We all know that things went terrably for japan after that. It still draws out the indignation among certain people though.

[Vy'drach]

Of course. I believe you are the one taking my point out of context. Again, it is a case of people believing the movies. In this case it's the bad arse 'click' seen in games and films when the hero points a gun at things. My exposure to guns is limited though, but the thread is common misconceptions. ie. Things that are wildly considered true when it is not.

In that regard you're for the most part right. Some gun still do make that sound however, just not as many. It is possible to get that sound with how you hold and grip the gun too, however, as I can get my AK to make that sound when I move it.

Actually, having just taken it out and messed with it, mostly bringing it from the ready position to my eye, it makes a lot of noise. The sling swivels rattle on it, and the fore grip and magazine tend to make that click, so when I did bring it up to my eye it went something like, "Ringa cli-click."

My M1A however, did not unless I held it like an idiot, where the charging handle could pinch my fingers during the extraction, ejection, and feeding stages, unless I was wearing gloves.

Haven't tried with pistols as I don't want to have to wipe those down, but it seems you can get most any gun to make that "click," just you sometimes need to do it in a stupid and dangerous way.

But mostly it's just Hollywood stupidity, such as the "lethal" shot locations. Anything short of a head shot isn't instantly fatal. I remember a case a while ago where a man lived for over five minutes with his throat slit, until the people who slit his throat shot him in the head with a 12 gauge. Decapitation might not even be instantly fatal as they believe your brain will stay active for several minutes after it happens. Rather backed up by the chicken that lived for a few years after being beheaded, until it choked on a corn kernel.

[Sabre]

I believe decapitation is a case of seconds or tens of seconds. A sleeper hold applied for 16 seconds too long can cause brain damage I'm told.

Non lethal shot (and stab, and punch) locations are crazy. If you are lucky you can survive being shot in the head. Leg and shoulder shots are common in films, but it's possable to bleed out in seconds.

On a related note. 'Reasonable force' in terms of self defence is a common claim. "You should have shot him in the leg/hit him in the gut" (in a case of a fatal blow to the head), but the simple truth is that such methods are not a practical means of defence. eg. A guy who was shot in the leg can still shoot back. That's a bit of a subjective claim though.

[Fira-Astrali]

Non lethal shot (and stab, and punch) locations are crazy. If you are lucky you can survive being shot in the head. Leg and shoulder shots are common in films, but it's possable to bleed out in seconds.

Yeah, this one bothers me when i see it in movies. Just because you haven't been shot in the head doesn't mean a bullet isn't going to hurt you

[Robert Monroe]

I believe decapitation is a case of seconds or tens of seconds. A sleeper hold applied for 16 seconds too long can cause brain damage I'm told.

Non lethal shot (and stab, and punch) locations are crazy. If you are lucky you can survive being shot in the head. Leg and shoulder shots are common in films, but it's possable to bleed out in seconds.

On a related note. 'Reasonable force' in terms of self defence is a common claim. "You should have shot him in the leg/hit him in the gut" (in a case of a fatal blow to the head), but the simple truth is that such methods are not a practical means of defence. eg. A guy who was shot in the leg can still shoot back. That's a bit of a subjective claim though.

Gun vs gun, fatality is often the necessity. But if you have a gun and he doesn't, theres no reason why you can't just clock his kneecaps out.

[Mr. Krystal]

Gun vs gun, fatality is often the necessity. But if you have a gun and he doesn't, theres no reason why you can't just clock his kneecaps out.

There are several reasons. Kneecaps are smaller than the main target (the torso) AND even the head (considered an effective, but difficult shot). It's very easy to miss the entire body when not aiming for the center of mass, barring being an expert shooter (most are not). Kneecap shots are usually used to inflict pain after the person is already disarmed, removing the need to shoot them in the first place. And, as stated before, a disabled person can shoot back at you, others, or in some cases, activate the explosives they are wearing. One of the most important rules taught when you learn how to handle a gun for concealed carry is that, if you intend to fire your gun, you'd better be intending to kill them. On the plus side, when a person completes this training, they are less likely to shoot someone than if they didn't have the training, as you are made very aware of the laws involved, the situations in which you would be held liable even if defending yourself, and how to gauge the situational danger to determine if a gun is necessary.

[Robert Monroe]

There are several reasons. Kneecaps are smaller than the main target (the torso) AND even the head (considered an effective, but difficult shot). It's very easy to miss the entire body when not aiming for the center of mass, barring being an expert shooter (most are not). Kneecap shots are usually used to inflict pain after the person is already disarmed, removing the need to shoot them in the first place. And, as stated before, a disabled person can shoot back at you, others, or in some cases, activate the explosives they are wearing. One of the most important rules taught when you learn how to handle a gun for concealed carry is that, if you intend to fire your gun, you'd better be intending to kill them. On the plus side, when a person completes this training, they are less likely to shoot someone than if they didn't have the training, as you are made very aware of the laws involved, the situations in which you would be held liable even if defending yourself, and how to gauge the situational danger to determine if a gun is necessary.

Most shmucks with guns are losers who think they're a badass and the moment you disable them lose all nerve and the will to fight. Someone who is carrying explosives is an insanely unlikely event for day to day civilian defense, which is what I was referring to.

[Mr. Krystal]

Most shmucks with guns are losers who think they're a badass and the moment you disable them lose all nerve and the will to fight.

Evidence?

[Sylum]

He means most, mr. K. Like guys who buy them to be badasses, usually the guys who take facebook pictures in flat billed hats, money in one hand and holding the gun sideways in another. A trained person will be able to fight without the gun.

[Mr. Krystal]

He means most, mr. K. Like guys who buy them to be badasses, usually the guys who take facebook pictures in flat billed hats, money in one hand and holding the gun sideways in another. A trained person will be able to fight without the gun.

The word "most" is in question. What's the evidence that the incident rate is greater than 50%? How do you know the number of people who DON'T post photos of their guns on Facebook?

[Sylum]

My personal experience is just with the attitude compared to the training that I see.

I've had a few trip to the gun range where I've actually seen a group of about three of these "gangstas" walk in to the shooting stall next to me. The way it's set up, if someone puts there hands in the perfect position, you can see there gun from a stall over. He was literally holding it sideways. I moved 3 stalls down. I guess I'm getting away from my point here.

I guess it's just an opinion of mine that if they act that way, they don't know how to fight. Just talk shit and shoot terribly.

My common Misconception: Balisongs are not this evil, crime ridden, horrible weapon. They were made as a self defense weapon, yes but they are not as terrible as people think.

These days, they are used for more of an entertainment purpose. Just check my thread out in the lounge and you'll see what I mean.