The reloading pause fallacy

Status
Not open for further replies.
It is the reason bayonet charges work on the battlefield.
Click to expand...

I've been thinking about this a bit, and I think there is an additional reason beyond startle and surprise. The Fear of Cold Steel.

Startle and Surprise is why the charge works. Fear of cold steel is where the bayonet comes in. Everyone "knows" what bullets do, so there's always an intellectual fear of being shot. But everyone on the planet has been cut at some point in their lives, so there is a "gut level" experience added to the intellectual fear of cold steel.

And that why the bayonet is still useful in the modern era. Especially for prisoner control. Its almost unbelievable, but some people will defy someone holding a loaded gun on them, but obey when there's a naked blade on the end of that gun.

Startle and surprise alone has ended some of the mass shootings. And by alone, I mean without physically taking out the shooter. Just the act of resistance, particularly armed resistance (and not just with a gun) has caused some of the shooters to stop and retreat. Some have even killed themselves when their fantasy didn't go as planned.
 
^That last part is important. Again, ruined expectations really throw people for a loop.

In another force on force scenario I observed I watched a man try to clear a failure to extract that had lead to a double feed with tap, rack. Obviously it didn't work. The man sat there trying the same technique over and over. After some time the shooter in this scenario was next to him shooting him at contact distance. The original man was so absorbed in clearing the malfunction because it wasn't working as planned that he had become oblivious to what was more of a hand to hand confrontation at that point.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
The human condition is a mystery. No one knows exactly how they will react when fired upon, at least not the civilian population. Will we freeze, run, dodge, attack, what? How many of us train to be shot at and react to the bullet coming in our direction? We only hope we will answer the call. And so we train. The young man who recently gave his life charging a shooter could not have known his destiny, could never have known what would happen to him that day nor how he would respond.

Sorry to sound morose people, but studies are just that, studies. No one knows how they will react. Yes, our law enforcement officers are trained as are our military. They run to the sound of gunfire. The majority of us who encounter these horrendous situations are ordinary civilians, which is obviously the point of the attacker, is it not?

We train in hopes of never having to respond. And no matter how many rounds we put down range, not a single one of us knows how we will react when bullets come in our direction. I hope I rise to the occasion should it ever come to pass. But truth and transparency, I have no idea what my response might be. I hope to never find out.

Bless you all.
 
MarkGlazer said:
Sorry to sound morose people, but studies are just that, studies. No one knows how they will react. Yes, our law enforcement officers are trained as are our military. They run to the sound of gunfire.
Click to expand...
Unless they're the school resource officer at a certain high school in Florida.

Police officers are human beings, just like the rest of us. Some will react well when the balloon goes up, others will panic -- just like anybody else.
 
I've been thinking about this a bit, and I think there is an additional reason beyond startle and surprise. The Fear of Cold Steel.
Click to expand...

While that factors into the higher level brain thinking and is part of the difficulty matrix for killing, it is not present in the lizard brain when fight or flight kicks in.

It is not what causes an MG42 gunner to abandon his position in the hedgerow. It is part of difficulty of training and overcoming our natural aversion to taking human life.

It is why it is much easier for a fighter pilot to launch a missile or an Artilleryman to send out a barrage. The closer to the act, the harder it is psychologically to kill for NORMAL people. A knife represent one level above the most intimate act of bare hands. It is not the highest level of difficulty nor is it in general terms, our worst fear.

Once inside the OODA loop and startle/surprise takes over the brain becomes very simple, fight or flight. It is referred to as the lizard brain. Breaking the OODA loop is the startle reaction and what you are hoping for in your hail mary is the surprise follow on reaction represents a mistake. You can have a startle/surprise reaction that does not result in a mistake.

In the equation of an armed gunman vs unarmed victims the best thing one can do is get out of the line of fire. If escape is impossible, then all one can do is close the distance and fight for your life. There are no guarantees and no clean end of the " " to be found.
 
If escape is impossible, then all one can do is close the distance and fight for your life.
Click to expand...

I think the number of people shot while "hiding" shows that fighting for your live is not all you can do.
It is, however the only thing that offers even a tiny hope of affecting your fate, if flight is impossible.

There is a response/reaction no one ever seems to talk about, mostly because "we train warriors", or "the goal is to survive". There is more than just fight or flight, there is also "submit".

Submit isn't something I advocate, but it is something I recognize a percentage of people will do. Fight or flight are not the only possibilities, submit in there, too.

There are schools of thought that teach submit, or flight, as the only "moral" options. Ever hear the phrase "die if you must, but never fight back!"?
Personally, I don't care to be one of the morally superior dead. I don't care much about being thought morally superior, but I really care about the "dead" part. So, I never went to any of those schools.

We don't want people to submit (and doing nothing but prayer is in that category, as I see it) but we should recognize that it IS one of the responses people have.
 
Run, fight, submit or sacrifice your life so your fellows may live. The last is the act of a hero.

Like hero and ROTC cadet Riley C. Howell of UNCC. No honors or ceremonies will soothe the grief his parents must feel.

No amount of training can guarantee what anyone will do in a such a situation, yet it’s good to remember that sometimes, for some reason, people show that caring for the strangers around overcomes impossible odds at the ultimate price.

I think we all agree that what Riley Howell did shows how deep we are in trouble when someone gets a Presidential award for a good golf game.

Although I disagree with my friends here that carry concealed, I respect their desire to protect those around them. It’s the best us humans can aspire to.
 
Stinkeypete you have plenty to say about how one should carry. You have made it crystal clear you don't carry. Now you tell us you disagree with those of us who do. What's up with that?
 
You cannot train people to hide and shelter in place and then argue that the very same people you have trained are going to overwhelm an armed attacker by recognizing a pause related to reloading. If we, as a society, are going to use such things to our advantage we are going to have to actually familiarize ourselves, as a society, with the workings of the mechanical devise that creates such a pause.
 
K Mac, show me one place I told anyone how they should carry.

I get it out in public that I open carry in the field with my .44 and it’s a Ruger Single Action and NO COWBOY carries it cocked in their holster except guys named “Limpy”.

I carry semi-autos without one in the pipe when walking in the woods because if I see a promising brush pile, hear squirrels chattering, or spot plinking fodder it takes all of One second to make ready.

I mentioned that I am fortunate enough to have had the means over the past 35 years to have owed a wide array of pistols from old beaters to Glock plastic and that despite years of experience I know that I am one tired, cold, hungry, wet, exhausted moment from making a mistake so I do all I can to minimize the chance.

I tell everyone there are so many aspects to our sport from historical, collecting, appreciating craftsmanship and metalwork, Cowboy Action, Skeet, Trap, Bullseye, Bench Rest, plinking, Hunting, reloading, idpa, and there are lots of ways to carry a pistol where “I can shoot a second faster, with a zombie trying to bite my right hand” simply don’t apply and that everyone at competitions keeps their pistols unloaded and actions open until it’s your turn to fire for safety. Safety.

I remind people that lots of us are in the sport and have no desire or preparations to shoot people and we are just as alive as you are.

I never tell anyone what is best for them. That’s up to them.

Some fellas are very responsible in their concealed carry “game”. They read, they think, they take classes and practical seminars. They are indeed highly trained and experienced.

Quite a few more fellas bought a gun, took a 4 hour class, shot a box of ammo and are out on the street, watching YouTube videos of guys doing 20 round mag dumps in to old rusty refrigerators and think they are some kind of superhero. That’s just how it is because of the way laws are here in America. There are other countries, and other cultures we can learn from if you just wind up your thinkerbox.

I point out that arguments involving bow hunters up to their armpits in elk blood should have a big rifle handy, not bear spray or some pipsqueak Glock in a backpack and that black bear attacks and cougar attacks are less common than NDs.

I ask people to consider how much advertising plays a part in their rational decision making process.

I don’t accept your argument by telling me what I said inaccurately, then telling me what
I can and can’t do. Fact is, there is a problem in this country and if we don’t work for sensible solutions then I feel solutions will be forced on us, sensible or not.
 
There are other countries, and other cultures we can learn from if you just wind up your thinkerbox.
Click to expand...

Emulation, without consideration of differences, doesn't require much use of ones "thinkerbox" Indeed the right to the means of effective self defense for the common man was, at its time, a fairly novel idea. Unfortunately it seems more and more want to go back to that concept by emulation because they have not considered the entirety of the concept. To mask that under some guise of intellectualism is offensive.

Edit: You do know that an argument ad populum is a logical fallacy and as such not at all an intellectual argument using ones "thinkerbox" right?
 
Last edited:
there are lots of ways to carry a pistol where “I can shoot a second faster, with a zombie trying to bite my right hand” simply don’t apply
Click to expand...

Kind of an ignorant summary of a complex problem, but okay then.

I remind people that lots of us are in the sport and have no desire or preparations to shoot people and we are just as alive as you are.
Click to expand...

Who exactly here has expressed a "desire" to shoot people? I have insurance on my car and a fire extinguisher in my house. I don't plan to crash into people and I don't intend to set my house on fire. Preparing for something isn't the same as wanting something to happen.

Some fellas are very responsible in their concealed carry “game”. They read, they think, they take classes and practical seminars. They are indeed highly trained and experienced.
Click to expand...
Quite a few more fellas bought a gun, took a 4 hour class, shot a box of ammo and are out on the street, watching YouTube videos of guys doing 20 round mag dumps in to old rusty refrigerators and think they are some kind of superhero. That’s just how it is because of the way laws are here in America. There are other countries, and other cultures we can learn from if you just wind up your thinkerbox.
Click to expand...

As one of the people in the first group, I can tell you the problem I have with the second statement. My ability to attend those courses, practice as much as I do, etc. is a direct result of my income. Without my job I wouldn't have the time and money to do that. When you start getting into mandatory requirements it starts to become a form of income discrimination. Because a guy can't afford to shoot a case of ammo a month he shouldn't be allowed to take a pistol? You might say a case of ammo is more than you intend, but then the argument becomes how much additional practice and training is meaningful? And moreso who determines that? I've done 20+ courses and I still take more and wouldn't consider myself "done" with training.

I ask people to consider how much advertising plays a part in their rational decision making process.
Click to expand...

Yes, because the main reason a person would choose to carry concealed is solely due to advertising :rolleyes:. Do companies make money of of concealed carry? Sure, just as insurance companies make money and safety product companies make money. It's a capitalist market (unless that's one of those things you'd like to adopt from those other countries) and someone usually makes a profit. I don't accept that the people that do choose to carry concealed do it mostly due to marketing. In fact most people I have talked to that do concealed carry can often point to a specific instance in their life that influenced that choice.

Fact is, there is a problem in this country and if we don’t work for sensible solutions then I feel solutions will be forced on us, sensible or not.
Click to expand...

I fail to see how concealed carry is contributing to the "problem" (and I put that in quotes because I have no idea if you mean mass shootings, overall gun violence, etc. when you use a very generic term). The people killing people are already committing a felony. I'm not sure concealed carry being restricted would really dissuade them.

There's a tendency among anti-gun groups to label themselves "sensible". It's one of the most common tactics. The point is to make themselves seem reasonable and anyone that would oppose them seem unreasonable (similar to Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice). The problem is what is sensible to one person might not be sensible to another, for instance carrying with a round chambered or not.

I have to say that for someone that touts being a gun owner for 35 years you seem to have a very skewed view of what is a rather large, and growing, segment of the gun owning population.
 
I would call this a case of laying out a situation that creates a predetermined outcome and thrown your hands up and say, see, I told you.


When conducting ops against trained professional used to dealing with pressure, yea things are not whats now called optimal.

But then how many of those shooters is a trained professional? One I can think of (Texas)

Safety is not one layer, its multiple layers. Lower round magazine is no more than a layer.

Someone trying to change magazines in a high stress situation is also an opportunity. It may or may not work.

I'll take the shooter with fewer rounds in the gun any day of the week.
 
I think you have a skewed view, too- but I respect you as a thoughtful responsible and honorable man, contributing to a discussion about high capacity magazines.

My hope is that people will consider what actions are right for them, with realistically their training and abilities, for their own unique circumstances.

Some fellas here seem awfully offended that I discuss conclusions that are different from their conclusion simply because, it seems, they want to be right without offering their thinking. People’s minds might be opened to other possibilities or perhaps a newcomer might prefer a reasoned argument over “this way is always right” or “your gun is wrong, go buy a new one.”

I agree with RC- if I knew I had to be in a gunfight and all I could have was a pistol, I would pick something enormous, heavy, with a huge capacity loaded and ready to fire.

The antecedent of that conditional statement is “if I knew”

If I don’t know I will be in a gunfight, the original logical statement may or may not apply.

The contrapositive of my statement is “if I don’t pick the most enormous thing ready to fire, then I don’t know I will be in a gunfight.” This is true.
 
Last edited:
Some fellas here seem awfully offended that I discuss conclusions that are different from their conclusion simply because, it seems, they want to be right without offering their thinking. People’s minds might be opened to other possibilities or perhaps a newcomer might prefer a reasoned argument over “this way is always right” or “your gun is wrong, go buy a new one.”
Click to expand...

The offense taken, if you are not able to read what you wrote and understand the offense, was the shot at those who had different conclusions than you.

if you just wind up your thinkerbox.
Click to expand...

How, praytell oh great wise one of vast intellectualism :rolleyes:, did you expect this to be taken?
 
While I appreciate the compliments, you frankly don't know me enough to give me those compliments, nor I you. We're just two people discussing something online.

I don't think it's unreasonable or unexpected to go to a website where people might generally think a certain way, make some posts that are in conflict with those ideas and not (at least from my point of view) back those up particularly well and moreso make somewhat disparaging statements about those that disagree and expect to be greeted with open arms (mall commandos, thinkerbox, etc). Hardly the worst you could say or do, but not something that will endear you to most. That would be true for pro gun control websites as well. I say this as someone that tried to walk a middle ground for a long time.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
When we talking about each other in silly terms, the thread has burned out.

If someone has some factual commentary, you can PM staff for reconsideration.

Closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top