Why the First Cowboy To Draw Always Gets Shot 398
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."
Unforgivable! (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Agreed. Someone who draws first would (theoretically) be the one who DIDN'T think they could win, and as such would prolly be a little more nervous than the other guy.
Just my opinion though...my apologies if that is way more stupid than it was in my head.
Re:Unforgivable! (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.
Re:Unforgivable! (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.
Re:Unforgivable! (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.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Unforgivable! (Score:4, 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.
Re:Unforgivable! (Score:5, Funny)
Apparently Jack Bauer was not factored into the equation. In less than 8 days (seasons) he has killed almost 100 people.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Almost 100 people?
He's killed 227 before Day 8
http://24.wikia.com/wiki/On-screen_kills_by_Jack_Bauer [wikia.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08uJanZEeMo [youtube.com]
Re:Unforgivable! (Score:5, 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 [wikipedia.org] 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".
"Cops shoot man 12 times" (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.
Re: (Score:3, 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 circums
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The open secret of terminal ballistics is that the best way to stop a person is to hit them with the biggest fastest moving bullet that you can. To be more specific, it is to create the larges wound channel you possibly can and to introduce as much kinetic force as possible, that's most easily estimated by bullet diameter and speed. In the Strasbourg tests the hottest .357 magnum loads tested were less effective than the hottest .45 ACP. That's why states tend to have minimum bore requirements when hunting
Re: (Score:3, 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'.
Re: (Score:3, 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!
Re:Unforgivable! (Score:4, 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 [wikipedia.org] 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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Chances are you'll encounter a thug or a psychopath who is a combat veteran of many firefights.
Huh? Got a citation for that or are you just making assumptions? Most criminals aren't "combat veterans". They rely on intimidation and fear to get what they want. When confronted with someone who has the means and will to fight back they will usually run away.
Re:Unforgivable! (Score:5, Funny)
So Han Solo Did shoot 2nd! heh :D
Re:Unforgivable! (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the opposite of what the article is saying...
Yes, it is. It's an alternative explanation.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Unforgivable! (Score:5, Informative)
Action focuses the eye on the target. (Score:3, Interesting)
The one who moves first is 'moving' (in place). That bit of action focuses the eye of a responder and gives them a better visual target than the first guy has. If you stand absolutely still when someone shoots you, you don't present as good a target as if you are moving your arms or making some motion (but not large enough motion that it would throw off the other person's perspective of your center of target.
It's like bull fighting -- if you stand still with the red-cape, the bull may or may not go at you
Re: (Score:2)
Seems odd, and just a tad self serving, for Unforgiven to have an explanation for a cheesy writer's ploy designed to keep the good guy's body as intact as his halo.
Almost as odd as spending time researching this.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Guess you never bothered to see this fantastic film, huh? William Munny sure as hell didn't have a halo.
Little Bill Daggett: You'd be William Munny out of Missouri. Killer of women and children.
Will Munny: That's right. I've killed women and children. I've killed just about everything that walks or crawled at one time or another. And I'm here to kill you, Little Bill, for what you did...
Re:Unforgivable! (Score:5, 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.
Re:Unforgivable! (Score:5, Funny)
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."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
One episode of ST:NG? How about his role as one of the main characters in the series "Warehouse 13"? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1132290/ [imdb.com]
I watched each episode of Warehouse 13 closely to see if there was a "Duck of Death" stored in the warehouse...how's that for nerdy?
Re:Unforgivable! (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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oops. Was rushed and didn't read the previous post all the way thorough. This was addressed. But it didn't get it quite right - it had the Chinese below the Irish. In fact in the old west the Irish WERE below the Chinese - and most of the Indians
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Seems odd, and just a tad self serving, for Unforgiven to have an explanation for a cheesy writer's ploy designed to keep the good guy's body as intact as his halo.
Nobody -- nobody -- in that film wore a halo, and the sheriff quoted above was not the good guy.
Of course, neither was the protagonist...
Re: (Score:3, 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!"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 exhi
Re: (Score:2)
Also keep in mind that as amazing as those guys are they didn't do those tricks under the pressure of their lives on the line.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's nothing, the guys at Myth-busters lit a match [aol.com] by shooting a bullet that just barely grazed the top of it. I'd like to see someone do that shooting from the hip!
Re: (Score:3, 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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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."
There was an interview with someone who'd been in a few gunfights and come out the winner. He said he was not that great of a shot but simply did not panic when he had to shoot someone for real.
You can test out this phenomenon in real life quite easily. Find someone who can consistently sink 3 pointers and tell him the next basket has $25k riding on it. More than likely he'll muff the next shot now that he knows something is riding on it. If he can put that out of his mind and take the next shot like he did
Re:Unforgivable! (Score:4, 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.
Re:Unforgivable! (Score:5, 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.
BANG! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:BANG! (Score:5, Funny)
More unforgiven (Score:2)
"You ain't shot!"
Re: (Score:2)
Musta been grazed by the bullet that hit Mcgrew...
Re: (Score:2)
That's because your reaction speed gain did not make up for delay.
I confess, I actually RTFA.
Must be joking (Score:5, Funny)
Bad summary (Score:5, Informative)
To quote Wyatt Earp (Score:3, Insightful)
"It's not the first man to draw who wins. It's the first man to hit his target."
Re:Bad summary (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.
Re:Bad summary (Score:4, 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.
Having relatives in law enforcement (Score:4, 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?
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.
Re:Bad summary (Score:4, 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.
uh, Cowboy Neal... (Score:2)
The mythbusters need to test this! (Score:5, Interesting)
The mythbusters need to test this!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? Real scientists have already confirmed it. Methinks someone just wants to see Jamie get shot on tv.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't we all?
Re: (Score:2)
If Jamie did get shot he would probably just shrug it off and keep going cause he has the " 'stache of power".
Real Scientist Adam's the one getting shot... (Score:2)
They've already had this duel. Adam's the one who's gonna get shot.
And BTW, that crack about "Real Scientists?" If you Observe, Hypothesize, Test and Repeat, then congratulations, you're a Real Scientist(tm). You need to remember to leave the door open for the patent clerks, the mud-covered mathematicians, the Idaho farmboys, and the peasant bastards...
Re:The mythbusters need to test this! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? Real scientists have already confirmed it.
Because the Mythbusters would dress up in cowboy costumes and play "high noon" music.
What's wrong with a blank? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But if you go closer to the source you will see that it was the propellant from a blank cartridge that propelled a bullet at is abdomen in the first place. So he was killed by both a bullet and a blank, it took the combination of both to cause the fatal injury.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The mythbusters need to test this!
on eachother...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, I guess the subject got shot by the comment, since it drew first?
It's a variant of "Instinctive Shooting" (Score:3, Informative)
Basically if you have trained and know your weapon you fire faster if you don't think about it, it's a reflex thing and I have personally experienced the accuracy portion of this, meaning; if I know my rifle I can shoot without little or no thought/concentration and I am generally more accurate.
1645 called. (Score:5, Informative)
Miyamoto Musashi established this phenomenon quite well in 1645. Book of five rings [wikipedia.org].
Feudal Japan called, they want their news back.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hey, if a samurai wants to tell me something, I damn well listen!
I certainly don't argue with him, or he might just stab me right in the scientific method.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually the Japanese have developed a number of intellectual concepts around the timing of your and your opponents actions. It is worthwhile to investigate them since they had a combative culture based around one on one confrontation that lasted for hundreds of years. There was a lot of philosophical musing about how to succeed at this. With regards to timing there are three terms frequently used to describe an engagement. They sometimes go by different names but the ones I'm familiar with are:
well - YA. Wyatt Earp even said so (Score:2, Interesting)
Before he died, Wyatt Earp was interviewed where he admitted he was no where near the fastest draw - but he pointed out that being accurate with your first shot was by far the most important criteria
Re: (Score:2)
In other words..... Practice.
If you blew through 12 boxes of rounds by shooting at cans from a holstered position, you would be better than 90% of the other cowboys out there at a pistol duel.
if you did it on a regular basis you could easily win every one you were in.
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest mistake is to draw. You only need to pull the weapon out of the holster if you intend to aim with the sights. Otherwise, you can just shoot from the hip and cut a lot of unnecessary motion out of it. At close range it probably doesn't matter that much anyway.
Re:well - YA. Wyatt Earp even said so (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Because Wyatt Earp was nothing if not particular about the singular form of Latin nouns.
Little known fact: the battle of the OK Coral actually started over an argument of whether octopi or octopuses was correct. (Earp went with octopuses.)
Fast vs Accurate (Score:2)
It also helps to have the script writer and director on your side as well as your name on the marquee...
Re: (Score:2)
The person who draws first has just as much opportunity to be Fast and Accurate as the person who draws second.
So while true, your explanation really does not really help explain anything about the movies or real life.
The movie bad guy usually has 10 or 20 notches on his gun, so why did he not learn that the Bang does nothing?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"The movie bad guy usually has 10 or 20 notches on his gun"
But that explains all! No wonder the bad guy misses the mark with such a notched unballanced gun!
In movies, it's a Morality lesson (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I always thought it was because if the guy who drew first usually won, then there'd be no point to those dramatic stand-offs where everyone waits for someone else to draw. They'd just be giving the other guys a chance to kill them. The bad guy would draw immediately.
And only sometimes is it implied that the good guy wouldn't draw first. It's just there's the stand off that has to happen.
Corollary (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?
Re: (Score:3, 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.
Han shot first (Score:3, Insightful)
...but Greedo drew first, so I guess the effect extends to space ruffians too.
Better counter-example - Liberty Valance (Score:5, Insightful)
Somebody read (and understand) the facts, please (Score:3, Informative)
Somewhere on the way this story changed from telling this:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18463-draw-the-neuroscience-behind-hollywood-shootouts.html [newscientist.com]
to saying the opposite. Perhaps people didn't read it closely enough?
Re: (Score:2)
The alien didn't shoot at all. If I shoot you, it's not likely you'll shoot back.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Only in the digital remake. I have the theatrical version on VHS, in it you don't see anyone shoot. The alien raises his gun, then the scene switches to outside the door where there is a BOOM and a flash and smoke and you think Solo has been killed, until he walks out and apologizes for the mess.
Re:Oblig. (Score:5, 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.
Re:Oblig. (Score:5, Funny)
AKA "How I Learned To Enjoy Wookiee Lovin'"
Re: (Score:2)
AKA "Let The Wookie Win: How I Learned To Whimper Quietly And Just Take It So I Wouldn't Get My Arms Ripped Out of Their Sockets"
Re:Oblig. (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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They’re not that bad when fully shaved. ;)
After all, they evolved from hairy Greek women.
Re:Oblig. (Score:5, Funny)
Get in there, you big furry oaf! I don't care how it smells. GET IN THERE!
Re:Oblig. (Score:5, 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 )
Re: (Score:2)
Han shot first and he's a good guy.
SHUT UP!! HAN SHOT FIRST DAMMIT!!!
Stupid Lucas.
Re: (Score:2)
You must not have seen Battle Beyond The Stars. Cowboy died in that movie, and he was the good guy!
Not quite (Score:2)
Simple human reaction time to an external stimulus is 0.05 to 0.20 seconds, depending on the type of stimulus - tactile, audial, visual, roughly in that order.
That .75 seconds that your brought up may have included decision trees because simple human reaction time to simple stimuli is much, much faster than 3/4 seconds.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Howard Hawks gave his interviewers lots of bs, but this one was true. He hated the good guy drawing first scenario. He reasoned that if the bad guy was really a badass, the good guys put them down, quickly and with prejudice. Indeed the original Han-shot-first scenario was lifted straight out of two of Hawks' films.
Here's another thing Hawks said that I believe. He goes and sees "High Noon," and it pisses him off that Gary Cooper's character is going around asking for help. Hawks basically thinks that the s
Re:eastwood movies (Score:4, 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.