The gunfighter's dilemma • Hacker News Board

Re: The gunfighter's dilemma

#51

Post by electromagnetic » Thu, Feb 04, 2010, 1:40 AM UTC

run4yourlives wrote: post #49

v3rt wrote: post #24

Apparently, it's incorrect that the winning strategy is to move second - while the drawing motion take ~20ms less when reacting, it takes ~200ms to react in the first place, leaving you quite dead. See http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2010/02/why_does_th... Did the BBC misinterpret the data, or did the scienceblogs article make a mistake?

I was just thinking the same thing... the 20ms difference only matters if the start time of the action is less than 20ms before the start time of the reaction. Just because you can do something faster, it doesn't always mean you finish faster.

Aiming isn't taken into consideration with a button press, so I wouldn't exactly call this study accurate. Bohr did a more scientifically valid test without anything more than a pair of pop guns.

Re: The gunfighter's dilemma

#52

Post by nradov » Thu, Feb 04, 2010, 4:25 AM UTC

nkurz wrote: post #33

nfnaaron wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"(After ensuring the gun was unloaded) one of us would point the pistol right at the other's head." Fail. Absolute fail. We say "the gun is always loaded" even when we "know" it is not, because if we never, ever point a gun at something that we don't want to destroy, we will never make that one in a million mistake. Fail. Sorry for the forcefulness, but this kind of gun "play" always deserves to be called out and dis…

I think you are wrong. I agree with you, in the sense that I would not feel comfortable doing this. "The gun is always loaded" is great rule, as is "Never point a gun at something you don't want to shoot". But it has its limits, and context is important. Assume that you're a hostage negotiator, or someone in the police or military that otherwise expects to end up in a situation where someone is pointing a presumably…

Professionals are not that stupid to point real guns at their friends' heads. They use special training models which can't actually shoot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock_pistol#Training_variants

Re: The gunfighter's dilemma

#53

Post by roundsquare » Thu, Feb 04, 2010, 5:12 AM UTC

Niels Bohr, liked to take time off from figuring out the structure of the universe by watching westerns.

Bohr noticed that the man who drew first invariably got shot, and speculated that the intentional act of drawing and shooting was slower to execute than the action in response.

Haha, really? So he formed a hypothesis based on movies? I'm fairly sure its just poorly written in the article but if it is not thats just silly.

Edit: Formatting

Re: The gunfighter's dilemma

#54

Post by InclinedPlane » Thu, Feb 04, 2010, 5:27 AM UTC

rubinelli wrote: post #29

edw519 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know what you're thinking. "Does the nucleus have six electrons or only five?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this uncertainty I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is an isotope of uranium, responsible for slow-neutron fission, and would blow your city clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?

Hah, this is a trick question; the nucleus doesn't have electrons. And if it blows up, you don't bury the survivors.

Hah, this is a trick question; the nucleus doesn't have electrons.

Well, technically, in an s-orbital there is a substantial, non-zero chance of the electron being inside the nucleus.

Re: The gunfighter's dilemma

#55

Post by Super_Jambo » Thu, Feb 04, 2010, 1:21 PM UTC

omgsean wrote: post #22

Super_Jambo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I remember of KravMaga gun disarms they agreed with your experiments. They taught moving your head out the way at the same time as grabbing.

A Krav Maga gun disarm involves twisting the body while redirecting the shot. Grabbing the gun isn't supposed to prevent the gun from firing, it's supposed to prevent the shot from killing you. In a real life situation when someone's got a gun to your head you probably don't have time to think about the gun's mechanics.

Well thats why you're thinking about it ahead of time.

I distinctly recall the instructors commenting they'd rather face an idiot who gets too close to you with a gun than an idiot who gets too close to you with a knife, the knife will still cut you if you grab it.

They also suggested you comply with anyone who has a weapon unless you have good reason to think they'll kill you anyway.

I Really should take Krav up again, was good stuff.

Re: The gunfighter's dilemma

#56

Post by Super_Jambo » Thu, Feb 04, 2010, 1:29 PM UTC

arohner wrote: post #17

Super_Jambo wrote: post #12

So optimally you want to be startled into action by something other than your opponent drawing. Then you get the speed advantage & a head start... Wonder if anyones done any research on training this for martial arts.

We had techniques where we try to minimize the "telegraphing" of our own punch. You practice that with a partner, and try to hit the partener's open hand before they can react to it. If the partner notices you moving first, they drop their hand and they "win". Its an effective drill for the partner too, because they have to learn to read your body motion.

Yeah, they do this in Krav and Jitsu too, but it's not what I'm talking about. These techniques are about spotting the initiator as early as possible, then you're startled into re-action.

The article suggests that actions where you're primed to act and then startled into action are faster than ones where you act of your own volition.

So, could you (for example) condition yourself into being startled by say a raised eyebrow, at which point you would be able to carry out a pre-planned attack with the same speed as a reaction.

Re: The gunfighter's dilemma

#57

Post by gaius » Thu, Feb 04, 2010, 1:43 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #43

gaius wrote: post #2

So much for first-mover advantage.

The second mouse gets the cheese.

There's always free cheese in a mousetrap.

Re: The gunfighter's dilemma

#58

Post by hedgehog » Thu, Feb 04, 2010, 2:19 PM UTC

blasdel wrote: post #36

hedgehog wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude, slide immobilized it will still go bang.

Not if the hammer is immobilized by the slide being held racked back

Slide back yes, slide forward no, it is unclear if he knows that & while unlikely could lead to some harm.

Re: The gunfighter's dilemma

#59

Post by nkurz » Thu, Feb 04, 2010, 7:25 PM UTC

gaius wrote: post #40

nkurz wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are wrong. I agree with you, in the sense that I would not feel comfortable doing this. "The gun is always loaded" is great rule, as is "Never point a gun at something you don't want to shoot". But it has its limits, and context is important. Assume that you're a hostage negotiator, or someone in the police or military that otherwise expects to end up in a situation where someone is pointing a presumably…

Google "operant conditioning".

I've done so, and think I am generally familiar with the concept. I don't see any direct connection. Could you explain the relevance that you see?

Re: The gunfighter's dilemma

#60

Post by gaius » Thu, Feb 04, 2010, 9:22 PM UTC

nkurz wrote: post #59

gaius wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google "operant conditioning".

I've done so, and think I am generally familiar with the concept. I don't see any direct connection. Could you explain the relevance that you see?

It's why modern militaries prefer to train with real weapons. In the scenario the OP mentioned, it's about getting accustomed to facing a real weapon.

Note that I'm not advocating this for "play", or even amateur martial arts. Someone training for situations in which a real weapon will be pointed at them and they have to remain calm will benefit tho'. (I'm offering evidence to support your point BTW, not arguing with you!)