Tarmor's Terribly Tantalizing Tarasque Terrrifying Random Banter #234

[Rater202]

Trigger discipline refers to keeping your finger off the trigger unless you're ready to shoot. It's one of several basic safety features, along with "don't point the gun at anything you don't want to destroy" and "even if your gun is unloaded, it's loaded."

I was told that good trigger discipline was "your finger doesn't touch the trigger until you're ready to pull the trigger." Even if your gun is pointed at something you want to shoot, you don't touch the trigger till the exact moment you want to shoot and not a second before.

And regardless, I think the point stands: if the barrel is pointed at you and their figure is on the trigger, then either they've already decided to shoot you... Or they'll probably shoot you by accident if you startle them. Unless your reaction time is good enough to disarm them before they can pull the trigger there's probably nothing you can do at this point barring outside intervention.

[Peelee]

I was told that good trigger discipline was "your finger doesn't touch the trigger until you're ready to pull the trigger." Even if your gun is pointed at something you want to shoot, you don't touch the trigger till the exact moment you want to shoot and not a second before.

And regardless, I think the point stands: if the barrel is pointed at you and their figure is on the trigger, then either they've already decided to shoot you... Or they'll probably shoot you by accident if you startle them. Unless your reaction time is good enough to disarm them before they can pull the trigger there's probably nothing you can do at this point barring outside intervention.

That depends on who has the gun. Someone who cares about not killing the other person? Absolutely. Someone actively in the commission of a crime? I would be surprised. Plus, look at it from their perspective: the person rushing them gets shot accidentally, which still works out for them, since they are now safe from the person attacking them. Assuming, of course, they have the right kind of gun that can be shot with no action other than sliding in the magazine.

Anyway, best bet is still to rush if you're within the distance margin. You're saying it's not. Conventional wisdom of people who actually use firearms and teach firearm safety says it is. I would highly recommend you consider that you may be wrong here.

[Rater202]

Anyway, best bet is still to rush if you're within the distance margin. You're saying it's not. Conventional wisdom of people who actually use firearms and teach firearm safety says it is. I would highly recommend you consider that you may be wrong here.

And conventional wisdom of martial artists, up to and including Bruce Lee, greatest martial artist in modern history, is "don't attack someone who has a gun if you do not have a gun of your own. If you cannot get out of the situation without attacking them, you're screwed becuase gun beats fist. No exceptions."

So either the gun people are wrong about fist beating gun, or the martial arts people are wrong about gun beating fist.

[Peelee]

And conventional wisdom of martial artists, up to and including Bruce Lee, greatest martial artist in modern history, is "don't attack someone who has a gun if you do not have a gun of your own. If you cannot get out of the situation without attacking them, you're screwed becuase gun beats fist. No exceptions."

So either the gun people are wrong about fist beating gun, or the martial arts people are wrong about gun beating fist.

Yes, gun beats fist. Nobody would ever contend that. But if Bruce Lee had a gun pulled on him and tried to run, he'd probably get shot. He was not known for his gun defense.

ETA: Also, everything Keltest says below.

[Keltest]

And conventional wisdom of martial artists, up to and including Bruce Lee, greatest martial artist in modern history, is "don't attack someone who has a gun if you do not have a gun of your own. If you cannot get out of the situation without attacking them, you're screwed becuase gun beats fist. No exceptions."

So either the gun people are wrong about fist beating gun, or the martial arts people are wrong about gun beating fist.

No, youre just wildly misunderstanding both people. If somebody pulls a gun on you to rob you, do whatever they say. There is no situation where you can start a fight and come out better than when you started if they have a gun and you do not. If somebody is pointing a gun at you with the intent to shoot you anyway, get in close. Youre still in danger, but you have made it harder for them.

[Rater202]

Yes, gun beats fist. Nobody would ever contend that. But if Bruce Lee had a gun pulled on him and tried to run, he'd probably get shot. He was not known for his gun defense.

Exactly.

That's why he owned several firearms and was trained in their use for the explicit purpose of defending himself if he was ever attacked by someone with a gun.

It's also why Enter the Dragon has Lee's character, a Shaolin Monk turned secret agent, frustrated at not having a gun when sent into a dangerous mission and part of the reason why Fist of Fury ended with the implication that his character was killed in the final battle when the real-life person the story it was based on lived.

Lee did not believe that an unarmed man could win against someone with a gun.

If we are talking about an unarmed person defending themselves from someone with a gun, I will take the word of the best-unnrmed fighter in modern memory.

[enderlord99]

We've established that the safest answer, regardless of what weapon they're using, is "give 'em your wallet" now can we please move on to something else?

[Peelee]

Exactly.

That's why he owned several firearms and was trained in their use for the explicit purpose of defending himself if he was ever attacked by someone with a gun.

It's also why Enter the Dragon has Lee's character, a Shaolin Monk turned secret agent, frustrated at not having a gun when sent into a dangerous mission and part of the reason why Fist of Fury ended with the implication that his character was killed in the final battle when the real-life person the story it was based on lived.

Lee did not believe that an unarmed man could win against someone with a gun.

If we are talking about an unarmed person defending themselves from someone with a gun, I will take the word of the best-unnrmed fighter in modern memory.

There's a break in communication here. I'm not saying that an unarmed person can adequately defend themselves against someone with a gun. I'm saying, in an emergency situation, where someone else has a gun and you do not, if they are within close range, and you believe you are going to be shot regardless, the best defensive option is to rush the gun. This is widely held to be true. This does not mean that this is a good option. This means that this is the least bad option.

If you are searching for a good option, there are none. There will not be. There are least bad options. That would still be the best option. Again, this is widely held as true by a lot of peopel with a lot more knowledge and experience than you or I have.

[Beeftank]

I don’t think Peelee is saying running towards the armed guy is a hard counter for him having a gun. I don’t think anybody here is saying fist beats gun. Bruce Lee is probably right in that you’re screwed either way, but that doesn’t mean certain tactics don’t give you a marginally higher chance for survival than others.

It’s like a Hail Mary in football. If you’re in a position that you need to do it, you’re basically already screwed. Still might as well try.

[Rater202]

There's a break in communication here. I'm not saying that an unarmed person can adequately defend themselves against someone with a gun. I'm saying, in an emergency situation, where someone else has a gun and you do not, if they are within close range, and you believe you are going to be shot regardless, the best defensive option is to rush the gun. This is widely held to be true. This does not mean that this is a good option. This means that this is the least bad option.

If you are searching for a good option, there are none. There will not be. There are least bad options. That would still be the best option. Again, this is widely held as true by a lot of peopel with a lot more knowledge and experience than you or I have.

Great.

Except there's the context you're forgetting: I brought up guns in the context of "will kicking them in the crotch let them live" to emphasize that the scenario was specifically about a knife wielder.

In short, trying to kick a knife-wielder in the crotch might let you get out of the situaiton unstabbed versus trying to kick a gun-wielder you're probably still getting killed.

Comparative success.

Even ingoring that: Wisdom among the martial artists is "don't try to defend yourself with martial arts" and I'll side with the martial artists on this.

[Peelee]

Great.

Except there's the context you're forgetting: I brought up guns in the context of "will kicking them in the crotch let them live" to emphasize that the scenario was specifically about a knife wielder.

In short, trying to kick a knife-wielder in the crotch might let you get out of the situaiton unstabbed versus trying to kick a gun-wielder you're probably still getting killed.

Comparative success.

Even ingoring that: Wisdom among the martial artists is "don't try to defend yourself with martial arts" and I'll side with the martial artists on this.

Dude. In the context of "Rater thinks that Rater's answer is objectively correct and everyone else in the class, and also in this thread, is wrong", then yes. However, "kick 'em in the crotch" is not a terribly good option. A lot of people in your class apparently agreed. A lot of people in this thread agreed. And hell, your entire defense can be largely defused by the mugger being a woman. And regardless of all that, when multiple people tell you exactly what I mean, you continue to assert that you were correct in context of your original stance despite having moved on from that some time ago.

I'm done trying.

[Bartmanhomer]

Well, a few minutes ago I block a Facebook friend because he's anti-vax and anti-mask. After that, I exposed him to all my Facebook friends on what type of person he truly is by posting screenshots of his ridiculous anti-vax and anti-mask debate and argument. I really can't associate people like him.

[Lacco]

Dude. In the context of "Rater thinks that Rater's answer is objectively correct and everyone else in the class, and also in this thread, is wrong", then yes. However, "kick 'em in the crotch" is not a terribly good option. A lot of people in your class apparently agreed. A lot of people in this thread agreed. And hell, your entire defense can be largely defused by the mugger being a woman. And regardless of all that, when multiple people tell you exactly what I mean, you continue to assert that you were correct in context of your original stance despite having moved on from that some time ago.

I'm done trying.

Trying to do what?

As for the supposed martial arts student: intimidation by calmness works in some cases (you basically take control of the situation by asserying dominance), but most probably would not work in Rater's example ('serious mugger who will use a knife').

Kick in the groin is much harder to execute properly than you might think and may not incapacitate the mugger. Rater's detailed explanation of its effects sounds exactly like from a McDojo. Also, don't think many martial arts teach those. You are actually losing range and will get stabbed and maybe even tackled - and being on the ground, with a knife in your stomach... it's a bad situation.

Your best bet is handling the fake wallet with a small amount of money or screaming "FIRE!" repeatedly. Or going berserk - see you in Valhalla.

Well, a few minutes ago I block a Facebook friend because he's anti-vax and anti-mask. After that, I exposed him to all my Facebook friends on what type of person he truly is by posting screenshots of his ridiculous anti-vax and anti-mask debate and argument. I really can't associate people like him.

Ooooh! Drama!

[Bartmanhomer]

Ooooh! Drama!

Well, this situation made my blood boil on this one.

[Lacco]

Well, this situation made my blood boil on this one.

Well, some time ago you decided to move away from internet drama and here you go, stirring up some.

[Mystic Muse]

It sounds like that's exactly what the dev-message tried to point out - that you did already know up front that none of it is real because it's a video game.

Exactly. That's the whole point.

Nothing being real within the context of the story is different from nothing being real in the context of it being a story, though.

This is more my argument.

Yes, I'm aware that none of what I'm encountering in a fictional story is real. Like Keltest says, nothing being real within the context of the story is different from it being real in the context of it being a story.

I guess what confuses me is, how does none of a story being real improve things? I'm not discussing Lotus Eater Machine scenarios, or other things where one part of a greater narrative does not actually happen.

Why is making an entire story not real, even in the context of the story itself, in any way an improvement? Why and how am I supposed to feel anything but robbed when the ending is "none of that ever actually happened" and that's it?

[Bartmanhomer]

Well, some time ago you decided to move away from internet drama, and here you go, stirring up some.

Well, I'm sorry but it looks like I can't escape drama no matter how hard that I avoid it. It is just like running away from a stray dog who is very attracted to you but no matter how far you run the stray dog always followed you.

[Mystic Muse]

Well, I'm sorry but it looks like I can't escape drama no matter how hard that I avoid it. It is just like running away from a stray dog who is very attracted to you but no matter how far you run the stray dog always followed you.

You could delete your Facebook.

[Bartmanhomer]

You could delete your Facebook.

I got so many friends on Facebook. I'm not going to delete my Facebook but I will remove people on my friend list who I rarely have a conversation with them.

[Rater202]

As for the supposed martial arts student: intimidation by calmness works in some cases (you basically take control of the situation by asserying dominance), but most probably would not work in Rater's example ('serious mugger who will use a knife').

Particularly if you are unwilling to follow up on it.

As I noted more than once, I asked a follow-up question and the woman insisted that she would not use her supposed martial arts skills in that situation. If telling the assailant "I will not allow you to harm me did not work" she would have stood there and done nothing and let him stab her.

That's the entire reason I brought this up. I thought that was a peculiar thing for a bunch of people to agree two and thought it would be amusing to bring up.

The gun thing is honestly a tangent that ran too long...

Kick in the groin is much harder to execute properly than you might think and may not incapacitate the mugger. Rater's detailed explanation of its effects sounds exactly like from a McDojo. Also, don't think many martial arts teach those. You are actually losing range and will get stabbed and maybe even tackled - and being on the ground, with a knife in your stomach... it's a bad situation.

Your best bet is handling the fake wallet with a small amount of money or screaming "FIRE!" repeatedly. Or going berserk - see you in Valhalla.

Actually, it's from a women's self-defense pamphlet.

A kick to the groin is harder to execute than most attacks... But it's also an attack that you do not need any training to do. There are better options, but a lot of them require special training to use at full effectiveness. A kick to the groin merely requires you to be able to lift your foot that high and your aim to be true. If you don't know how to throw a punch, then a thrown punch won't do much unless you hit them somewhere specific. Same applies to kicks.

Furthermore, surprisingly few people are prepared for someone to kick them in the groin.

The pamphlet also made mention that if someone grabs you from behind and tries to drag you off that if you are in a position to do so, smashing their nose with the back of your head would be very disorienting for the attacker(a straight blow to the nose can potentially knock someone out cold by itself due to proximity to the central nervous system and how the brain reacts to the force), a recommends following up any attack with a punch to the center mass(solar plexus) while the assailant's guard is down and has a diagram for the best way to hold your fingers to maximize damage and irritation when trying to poke someone in the eye... Though I'm not sure how practical that one would be.

Like I said, I like to do research about emergency situations.

The bit about breaking the cartilage in the pelvic region was trivia in an excerpt from an old biology book someone linked during a discussion

Screaming fire would work if you're in an area where there are people to investigate, but as I said we're at the point where giving him your wallet is no longer an option in this scenario.

[Mystic Muse]

I got so many friends on Facebook. I'm not going to delete my Facebook but I will remove people on my friend list who I rarely have a conversation with them.

Well, oksy then.

Let's go with the analogy of the stray dog that keeps following you that you used.

Since you don't want to put the dog in a shelter (deleting your facebook, youtube, or other social media where drama occurs), there are several other options.

The first would be spending less time on them.

The next would be removing yourself from areas where drama tends to occur.

Last that comes to mind for now since it's 2:40 AM and I'm exhausted, if you aren't going to do anything about it, you could just stop informing us of the drama.

[Bartmanhomer]

Well, oksy then.

Let's go with the analogy of the stray dog that keeps following you that you used.

Since you don't want to put the dog in a shelter (deleting your facebook, youtube, or other social media where drama occurs), there are several other options.

The first would be spending less time on them.

The next would be removing yourself from areas where drama tends to occur.

Last that comes to mind for now since it's 2:40 AM and I'm exhausted, if you aren't going to do anything about it, you could just stop informing us of the drama.

That's a wonderful idea.

[Anonymouswizard]

Honestly, I recommend a good pruning of Facebook friends whenever they go above a hundred. Which isn't going to happen to me these days because I rarely use the platform.

[Form]

Honestly, I recommend a good pruning of Facebook friends whenever they go above a hundred. Which isn't going to happen to me these days because I rarely use the platform.

Sounds like good avice. At some point you can't possibly maintain that many social contacts. I haven't logged into facebook for ages and I intend to keep it that way, but I suppose I don't have the same energy or motivation to engage with it as those with a more extensive social media presence. Maybe I should delete my account altogether at some point, but there's always that nagging thought that says that some day I might need it to draw on an old acquaintance.

[Dire Moose]

And conventional wisdom of martial artists, up to and including Bruce Lee, greatest martial artist in modern history, is "don't attack someone who has a gun if you do not have a gun of your own. If you cannot get out of the situation without attacking them, you're screwed becuase gun beats fist. No exceptions."

This is true even if you have a melee weapon. Just ask Indiana Jones!

[Rater202]

This is true even if you have a melee weapon. Just ask Indiana Jones!

Do you know that scene was a throw-in? There was originally a scene scripted of Indy and the Swordsman having an elaborate duel that ended with Indy wrapping his whip around the sword and pulling it away, but on the day they filmed the scene, Ford was sick with dysentery and he was really not in any condition to be doing those kinds of stunts, so after ac couple of takes he just asked "Why don't I just shoot him?"

[Anonymouswizard]

Isn't it why he loses his gun at the beginning of Temple of Doom, so that when they have another dramatic sword wielder(s) reveal he tries to draw his gun and discovers be has to fight then?

[Peelee]

Isn't it why he loses his gun at the beginning of Temple of Doom, so that when they have another dramatic sword wielder(s) reveal he tries to draw his gun and discovers be has to fight then?

It's for the joke, yeah. Also, ToD is a prequel, so while that was clearly a callback, in the Indiana Jones timeline the one in Egypt was the callback to the first time he tried to do that and failed.

[Anonymouswizard]

It's for the joke, yeah. Also, ToD is a prequel, so while that was clearly a callback, in the Indiana Jones timeline the one in Egypt was the callback to the first time he tried to do that and failed.

It's been years since I saw an Indiana Jones film, and I kind of never noticed the prequel bit. It kind of doesn't matter for what I was referring to, Indy losing his gun is at least partially so that when the sword wielders a[[ear he can't just shoot them and has to engage in close combat (although the exact point in the film he loses it is not important to it playing out this way).

Yes it's a callback and an excuse to do a scene they wanted to do the first time, and yes in the in-film timeline this instance might come first, but it has nothing to do with what I was actually referring to.

Honestly, in terms of a pulp adventure I much prefer the way it plays out in ToD, it's more fun. But the RotLA version isn't a bad scene, I just like my pulp adventure to prioritise fun action scenes over pragmatism, it's personal preference.

[Keltest]

It's been years since I saw an Indiana Jones film, and I kind of never noticed the prequel bit. It kind of doesn't matter for what I was referring to, Indy losing his gun is at least partially so that when the sword wielders a[[ear he can't just shoot them and has to engage in close combat (although the exact point in the film he loses it is not important to it playing out this way).

Yes it's a callback and an excuse to do a scene they wanted to do the first time, and yes in the in-film timeline this instance might come first, but it has nothing to do with what I was actually referring to.

Honestly, in terms of a pulp adventure I much prefer the way it plays out in ToD, it's more fun. But the RotLA version isn't a bad scene, I just like my pulp adventure to prioritise fun action scenes over pragmatism, it's personal preference.

I like the fight with the german mechanic personally. It shows that Indy, for all his skill, is a guile hero not an action hero. He has to cheat to win an otherwise fair fight most of the time.