Guns and knockdown, What most of us didn't know Options Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic Download this topic Subscribe to this forum Display Modes Switch to: Outline Standard Switch to: Linear+

[evil_bacteria]

To quote Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets, by David Simon:

"Hollywood tells us that a Saturday Night Special can put a man on the pavement, yet ballistic experts know that no bullet short of an artillery shell is capable of knocking a human being off his feet. Regardless of a bullet's weight, shape and velocity and regardless of the size of the handgun from which it was fired, it is too small a projectile to topple a person by the impact of its own mass. If bullets truly had such power, the laws of physics would require that the shooter would also be knocked off his feet in similar fashion when he discharged the weapon."

However, later on that same page:

"Although the popular belief that many people fall down upon being shot is generally accurate, experts have determined this occurs not for physiological reasons, but as a learned response. People who have been shot believe they are supposed to fall immediately to the ground, so they do."

So instead of relying on the damage inflicted as opposed to the victim's Body, maybe it should require a Willpower Test to remain standing after being shot.

[Heath Robinson]

I would think that it's more shock and the sudden and unexpected application of force, generally to a point higher up the body. You can't really predict getting shot and the force is applied so abruptly that you simply cannot brace yourself against it. A standing human is a careful balancing act supported by the muscles of the individual, if the balance is off by more than a little then they're going to fall as they cannot compensate fast enough. Even rocking backwards onto your heels will cause you to fall unless you expect it. A short, sharp impulse applied to the central body is probably going to disrupt the balance of the target sufficiently to initiate a fall, even without the effects of shock from getting hit.

I apologise if I come off as aggressive, I hate to see disinformation spread.

[Faelan]

Falling down after being shot makes sense. It's called using micro terrain, or rather making yourself a harder target to hit. Instinct kicks ass.

[evil_bacteria]

I would think that it's more shock and the sudden and unexpected application of force, generally to a point higher up the body. You can't really predict getting shot and the force is applied so abruptly that you simply cannot brace yourself against it. A standing human is a careful balancing act supported by the muscles of the individual, if the balance is off by more than a little then they're going to fall as they cannot compensate fast enough. Even rocking backwards onto your heels will cause you to fall unless you expect it. A short, sharp impulse applied to the central body is probably going to disrupt the balance of the target sufficiently to initiate a fall, even without the effects of shock from getting hit.

I apologise if I come off as aggressive, I hate to see disinformation spread.

See, I'd think so, too, but Simon's book was written based on spending over a year with a squad of homicide detectives, so I have to assume that he knows more about the subject than we do. I mean, what do you or I really know about the physics behind people getting shot? He interviewed detectives and medical examiners.

Falling down after being shot makes sense. It's called using micro terrain, or rather making yourself a harder target to hit. Instinct kicks ass.

Again, if that's so, then a test regarding the person's Body just doesn't make sense. It should use Willpower or Intuition.

[Faelan]

My point is that knockdown does not make sense, rolls be damned.

[Cantankerous]

To quote Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets, by David Simon:

"Hollywood tells us that a Saturday Night Special can put a man on the pavement, yet ballistic experts know that no bullet short of an artillery shell is capable of knocking a human being off his feet. Regardless of a bullet's weight, shape and velocity and regardless of the size of the handgun from which it was fired, it is too small a projectile to topple a person by the impact of its own mass. If bullets truly had such power, the laws of physics would require that the shooter would also be knocked off his feet in similar fashion when he discharged the weapon."

However, later on that same page:

"Although the popular belief that many people fall down upon being shot is generally accurate, experts have determined this occurs not for physiological reasons, but as a learned response. People who have been shot believe they are supposed to fall immediately to the ground, so they do."

So instead of relying on the damage inflicted as opposed to the victim's Body, maybe it should require a Willpower Test to remain standing after being shot.

I suggest that the gentleman's never been shot. I have, by a medium caliber hand gun and between the sudden shock and the IMPACT (it felt roughly like being hit with a baseball bat by a VERY strong person...a thing I also had happen) I didn't so much "fall down" as get ejected from my feet.

It may not be simple mass alone, but there is no "learned response" here either. The body is a self preservation unit, when a sudden overwhelming injury occurs to it, IT reacts completely on it's own without learned response having jack shit to do with it. I suggest that the "experts" who have determined that physiological reasons don't apply have their heads up their fourth points of contact.


Isshia

[Shrapnel]

I propose that regardless of real life physics, firearms in Shadowrun should pick people up off their feet, throw them backwards anywhere from 2 to 10 meters, and perhaps remove a limb or two in the process.

This is Shadowrun, after all... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ninja.gif)

[psychophipps]

I suggest that the gentleman's never been shot. I have, by a medium caliber hand gun and between the sudden shock and the IMPACT (it felt roughly like being hit with a baseball bat by a VERY strong person...a thing I also had happen) I didn't so much "fall down" as get ejected from my feet.

It may not be simple mass alone, but there is no "learned response" here either. The body is a self preservation unit, when a sudden overwhelming injury occurs to it, IT reacts completely on it's own without learned response having jack shit to do with it. I suggest that the "experts" who have determined that physiological reasons don't apply have their heads up their fourth points of contact.

Isshia

I strongly suspect that it's just like burning yourself with your coffee or getting hit in a fight. Your body's first reaction will be to jerk away from it as violently as possible. This is why, I assume, that the majority of people shot in the front will fall backwards as shown time and again during police videos (even if caught off-guard). Of course, a nice shot that sufficiently disrupts the target to render them an immediate non-combatant will tend to look like their strings have been cut more than anything you see in the movies (besides Saving Private Ryan and Children of Men, of course).

[Daier Mune]

i remember they did this on Mythbusters. they hung a side of pig up on some kind of ballance point, and fired various caliber weaponry at it. the best they could do was make it sway a few inches, but nothing was able to knock it down. i agree that its more of a factor of the mind reacting to the gunshot wound, and less about the body reacting to the force.

[Rail]

There is one big difference between the typical gun shot wound victim and your average runner and antagonist. Body armor. With rare exceptions, anytime my players or my characters have been shot at, they have alwyas had some sort of ballistics protection (cost of doing business I guess). Granted, I have never been shot while wearing a vest, but it does spread the energy out over a larger area (akin to being hit with a baseball bat, or a truck, depending on who was speaking about it).

The wonderful thing about roleplaying in general is how some systems absract things for us, so we don't get bogged down in detail. You could make the argument that it should be a willpower check for a penetrating or armorless shot, and a body check for an armored hit, or accept that the rules took that into account without breaking it down to every possible situation (even if they don't, assume and error on the side of fun).

[Zen Shooter01]

The fact that the knockdown factor in gunfire is not simply a function of overwhelming force, like getting knocked off your feet by a truck, pops up periodically as if it's innovative and surprising news. No, it's not overwhelming force picking up the victim and flinging them. It's shock, surprise, not being braced against the blow, pain, and the force of the blow. But the fact remains that people who get shot tend to fall down. If that wasn't true, the firearm would not have caught on.

The current SR knockdown mechanic is a trade-off more in favor of playability than realism, but it works OK for me.

[Heath Robinson]

i remember they did this on Mythbusters. they hung a side of pig up on some kind of ballance point, and fired various caliber weaponry at it. the best they could do was make it sway a few inches, but nothing was able to knock it down. i agree that its more of a factor of the mind reacting to the gunshot wound, and less about the body reacting to the force.

The weight of the leg and the tensile strength of the meat and the fastening mean that the leg experienced a force opposing the swing. In contrast, a person falling gets positive feedback from the strength of his legs and gravity, causing the fall to grow faster. In layman terms, when you're hanging it's like you're on the inside of a ball and when you're standing it's like you're on the outside of a ball.

One is a hell of a lot easier to fall off.

[Cantankerous]

The weight of the leg and the tensile strength of the meat and the fastening mean that the leg experienced a force opposing the swing. In contrast, a person falling gets positive feedback from the strength of his legs and gravity, causing the fall to grow faster. In layman terms, when you're hanging it's like you're on the inside of a ball and when you're standing it's like you're on the outside of a ball.

One is a hell of a lot easier to fall off.

THIS gets in to the area of what I'm talking about. There is no "learned response" idiocy involved in autonomic nervous reflexes...and THEY are what takes over when you're hit by hyper velocity metal with very, VERY, little regard to the mass of said metal above and below certain threshold points. The insane idea that you fall down because you believe that you should is simply not defensible to anyone who stops and thinks for a moment about how the autonomic nervous system works and why the human body operates as it does. Again, I can almost bloody guarantee that the guy who wrote the article the OP read has never been shot.

Isshia

[Heath Robinson]

THIS gets in to the area of what I'm talking about. There is no "learned response" idiocy involved in autonomic nervous reflexes...and THEY are what takes over when you're hit by hyper velocity metal with very, VERY, little regard to the mass of said metal above and below certain threshold points. The insane idea that you fall down because you believe that you should is simply not defensible to anyone who stops and thinks for a moment about how the autonomic nervous system works and why the human body operates as it does. Again, I can almost bloody guarantee that the guy who wrote the article the OP read has never been shot.

Isshia

I wasn't actually talking about autonomous reactions, the positive feedback effect is the same one that makes a stick accelerate sideways as it falls from standing in its end. The resultant force from the fact that the leg is still attempting to support the body and the effect of its weight is that a force applies to reinforce the initial force. My main point was that standing is inherently less stable than hanging due to weight and the way that force vectors add, magnifying a small initiatory force into an unavoidable fall, hence the reference to the balls. When you're on the inside of a ball you tend to end up in the same place eventually (assuming some kind of damping), on the outside you tend to head off in a random direction with the least provocation.

[evil_bacteria]

THIS gets in to the area of what I'm talking about. There is no "learned response" idiocy involved in autonomic nervous reflexes...and THEY are what takes over when you're hit by hyper velocity metal with very, VERY, little regard to the mass of said metal above and below certain threshold points. The insane idea that you fall down because you believe that you should is simply not defensible to anyone who stops and thinks for a moment about how the autonomic nervous system works and why the human body operates as it does. Again, I can almost bloody guarantee that the guy who wrote the article the OP read has never been shot.

Isshia

You know, I'm sure he hasn't ever been shot. You're probably right about that. But what exactly makes you such an expert on physics and human psychology that you can dismiss a professional's report of expert theory as "insane"?

Also, what does OP mean?

I propose that regardless of real life physics, firearms in Shadowrun should pick people up off their feet, throw them backwards anywhere from 2 to 10 meters, and perhaps remove a limb or two in the process.

This is Shadowrun, after all... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ninja.gif)

That's the most reasonable response I've heard so far!

[Kerris]

I heartily agree that Shadowrun should not follow real life physics in this case. Cinematic combat has no use for physics.

Also, OP = original poster

[Siege]

I've heard descriptions of shooting victims range from "got hit by a sledgehammer" to "I didn't even know until I was shot until I saw the blood staining my shirt".

I, thankfully, have never been shot and hope never to be shot.

However, while a bullet impact may not, in and of itself, be the sole factor of a person being knocked down, I think it is inaccurate not to say that it would be a significant factor in a person ending up in a prone position. And as another poster mentioned, it really doesn't take a lot of force to topple someone who is already off-balance - the entire sport of Judo revolves around that idea.

As for the rest, put two experts in a room and you'll get three opinions.

-Siege

[kzt]

There is a video out there of a guy standing on one leg with his hands behind his back wearing a level IV vest who is shot by a 7.62x54mm FAL at point blank range. He doesn't even sway much. It's just not that much force if it's stopped by your body armor. OTOH, it could knock down some people if they are off balance, and if it isn't stopped by your armor it could do all sorts of crap.

[tweak]

I thought most fatalities due to bullet wounds was due to blood loss. Now, I think, we have to consider where the person was shot. If someone gets shot in the knee with a shotgun, I'm pretty sure they're going to fall. Of course, I do not think it's reasonable to bring an anatomy book to a game. Instead, just do your best to keep the game interesting. In a cinematic game, there is nothing wrong with someone being knocked down with a bullet. Just be consistent.

[ShadeRavnos]

I thought most fatalities due to bullet wounds was due to blood loss. Now, I think, we have to consider where the person was shot. If someone gets shot in the knee with a shotgun, I'm pretty sure they're going to fall. Of course, I do not think it's reasonable to bring an anatomy book to a game. Instead, just do your best to keep the game interesting. In a cinematic game, there is nothing wrong with someone being knocked down with a bullet. Just be consistent.

Most fatalities of gun shot is due to shick and the fact that a bullet doesn't travel in a stright line thru the body most of the time(in fact it's very rare) they're designed so that when they hit the bullet actually turns and starts to tumble thru the body turning the flesh in it's path in to mush(so says my criminology instructor)

And I also think that real world physics should not be brought into a fantasy RPG... It causes to many arguements and detracts from the fun.

[kzt]

And I also think that real world physics should not be brought into a fantasy RPG... It causes to many arguements and detracts from the fun.

If you want to make that case the game must be internally self-consistent, with all possible rules questions able to be settled by the rules, without expecting people to rely on any outside knowledge of how the real world works. If the GMs answer has to be "that's obvious" or "use some common sense" or "that doesn't make sense" or "because I say so" the game can't make that argument. SR certainly isn't a game that can claim that strong a set of rules.

People's activities in a game based are on their model of the world. They will fill in the holes based on their understanding of the real world and the literature the world is based on. You have to be able to supply a complete model if you really intend for the sun to actually be carried through the skies by horses of fire over the flat earth floating above underworld. You have to actually tell them this and get them to understand that this means there is no real horizon.

[Cantankerous]

You know, I'm sure he hasn't ever been shot. You're probably right about that. But what exactly makes you such an expert on physics and human psychology that you can dismiss a professional's report of expert theory as "insane"?

It completely ignores human bodily response (the autonomic nervous system) and relegates every aspect of it to learned response. That is rather bizzare at the VERY least.


Isshia

[psychophipps]

It completely ignores human bodily response (the autonomic nervous system) and relegates every aspect of it to learned response. That is rather bizzare at the VERY least.


Isshia

Well, there is a point to the "I learned to fall down so I did" argument. There have been a huge number of casualties where the soldier/police officer/etc was given a pretty minor wound that really shouldn't have taken them out and they went into shock, passed out, stopped fighting, etc. As immediately deadly direct-fire casualties are relatively rare in respect to overall casualties, I would have to say that there is indeed a strong psychological element to the overall effectiveness of individual gunshot wounds.

[Siege]

There is a video out there of a guy standing on one leg with his hands behind his back wearing a level IV vest who is shot by a 7.62x54mm FAL at point blank range. He doesn't even sway much. It's just not that much force if it's stopped by your body armor. OTOH, it could knock down some people if they are off balance, and if it isn't stopped by your armor it could do all sorts of crap.

I gotta look this one up - SAPI plates in particular and body armor in general just diffuse the impact and spread it out over a larger area. Softer kevlar and the like just snare the bullet without actually blunting the impact.

At least, so I understood the concept.

-Siege

[Cantankerous]

Well, there is a point to the "I learned to fall down so I did" argument. There have been a huge number of casualties where the soldier/police officer/etc was given a pretty minor wound that really shouldn't have taken them out and they went into shock, passed out, stopped fighting, etc. As immediately deadly direct-fire casualties are relatively rare in respect to overall casualties, I would have to say that there is indeed a strong psychological element to the overall effectiveness of individual gunshot wounds.

You don't go into shock (except in RARE cases) because of what you see that has happened to you. Often times the way shock affects the nervous system is by something akin to overload shutdown. It isn't that you don't feel the gunshot wound until you notice the blood, but that your conscious mind doesn't process the information because of overload shock. Often it is the return of perception of the wound, because of the overload being processed, that is WHY the person now notices they've been shot when they didn't before and they look in the area (or feel the blood flow there first in a concealed area) because they are beginning to perceive the wound as the overload works out.

I've seen a damned good deal of wounding in my time and can't place a single case where a significant wound was "pretty minor" except in appearance. How in the blazes can it be said that a wound shouldn't have taken them out if it was severe enough to cause shock? Shock is a physiological, NOT a psychosomatic condition. The human body is actually a VERY tough instrument. It can take a tremendous beating and keep going, or take what looks on the surface to be a next to nothing wound that, because it has caused severe internal injuries or because of the simple proximity to a nerve plexus, takes down IMMENSELY tough people who wouldn't be even slowed down by what looks to be FAR more severe wounds.


Isshia

[Ed_209a]

It may not be "shock" in the technical sense of the term, but there is definitely a psychosomatic aspect to any kind of injury.

Several months ago, I accidentally cut myself. Nothing major, just messy. My life wasn't in danger. I _knew_ my life was not in danger. I lose more blood when I go to the blood bank.

I still felt faint and had to sit down.

So, essentially I took 4-5 boxes of stun from less than one box of physical. Because, against my wishes, something in my brain said it is time to drop my blood pressure for a minute or so.

[Jrayjoker]

It may not be "shock" in the technical sense of the term, but there is definitely a psychosomatic aspect to any kind of injury.

Several months ago, I accidentally cut myself. Nothing major, just messy. My life wasn't in danger. I _knew_ my life was not in danger. I lose more blood when I go to the blood bank.

I still felt faint and had to sit down.

So, essentially I took 4-5 boxes of stun from less than one box of physical. Because, against my wishes, something in my brain said it is time to drop my blood pressure for a minute or so.

I love this description of shock. This is how I am going to describe stun damage from now on.

[Shiloh]

It may not be "shock" in the technical sense of the term, but there is definitely a psychosomatic aspect to any kind of injury.

Several months ago, I accidentally cut myself. Nothing major, just messy. My life wasn't in danger. I _knew_ my life was not in danger. I lose more blood when I go to the blood bank.

I still felt faint and had to sit down.

So, essentially I took 4-5 boxes of stun from less than one box of physical. Because, against my wishes, something in my brain said it is time to drop my blood pressure for a minute or so.

That is not psychosomatic. It's just plain physiological shock. Your mental and emotional state can affect whether you enter a state of shock or not (only time I've ever been in shock was from a *skinned knee*, for heaven's sake, but I was already emotionally stressed out by exams and a seriously ill mother and being late due to having to return home to change trousers and clean the grit out of the graze: I was sick on the bus). 'Tis different from psychosomatics.

[Cantankerous]

It may not be "shock" in the technical sense of the term, but there is definitely a psychosomatic aspect to any kind of injury.

Several months ago, I accidentally cut myself. Nothing major, just messy. My life wasn't in danger. I _knew_ my life was not in danger. I lose more blood when I go to the blood bank.

I still felt faint and had to sit down.

So, essentially I took 4-5 boxes of stun from less than one box of physical. Because, against my wishes, something in my brain said it is time to drop my blood pressure for a minute or so.

CAN there be? Sure. Does there need to be? Absolutely no. You can also, with the same person, just shrug and walk on as if nothing at all happened period. Why would it be a learned response one time and not the other?

The more likely explanation is a physiological one. Maybe you were nearing an electrolyte deficit as it was, before the accident. There are so many contributing factors to human physiology and how it operates in this situation THIS TIME and why it operates completely differently another time that simply because nothing obvious was happening doesn't mean that the explanation wasn't almost entirely physiological.

I know that I've sometimes felt faint after donating blood and that after I was shot (and lost more than twice as much blood as I would have from a donation) I jumped (literally) right back up and scrambled on. Adrenaline pumping through you can produce some drastic effects. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)


Isshia

[ornot]

From a medical perspective 'shock' refers to the circulation being compromised by a loss of blood.

/pedant mode off.

I'm not going to weigh in on guns or being shot, but in my experience as a phlebotomist people's response to losing/giving blood can vary a huge amount.

Some people completely ignore it, others freak out at the sight of the needle. I had one guy pass out when I was taking his blood pressure because he had gotten himself so worked up about the prospect of the needle. Another time a guy gave blood quite happily, but when he saw the vials with his blood in it he got very faint. Interestingly it's mostly men that have a problem with giving blood, while women, even if they hate needles faint far less readily.

[hyzmarca]

If its an instinctual autonomic response then one should be able to train and condition it away. Just have somene shoot you in the chest, put a bandage on the the wound, and repeat until you don't fall down.

[nezumi]

Or until you don't stand up.

[Jrayjoker]

Or until you don't stand up.

ROFLOL

[psychophipps]

While there are indeed experienced EMT/medic/paramedic-types on this board, there are also documented cases of soldiers and police officers going into shock and dying from minor wounds to the hands and/or feet. No excessive blood loss, no loss of the appendage. Hell, the coroners were pretty damn confused, I'm sure. That said, the psychological impact is absolutely huge and shouldn't be casually discounted as you never know what's going to happen until you or your patient has actually taken the wound.

[kzt]

I gotta look this one up - SAPI plates in particular and body armor in general just diffuse the impact and spread it out over a larger area. Softer kevlar and the like just snare the bullet without actually blunting the impact.

No they disperse it. It's what the whole backface deformation in the NIJ standards is about. The description I heard from a cops was that being shot in the chest with a vest was like being poked in the chest by a strong man's finger.

[Jrayjoker]

If that is the case then, wow! I'll take a poke in the chest over a shot to the hand any day...

[Cantankerous]

While there are indeed experienced EMT/medic/paramedic-types on this board, there are also documented cases of soldiers and police officers going into shock and dying from minor wounds to the hands and/or feet. No excessive blood loss, no loss of the appendage. Hell, the coroners were pretty damn confused, I'm sure. That said, the psychological impact is absolutely huge and shouldn't be casually discounted as you never know what's going to happen until you or your patient has actually taken the wound.

I'd like to read just ONE documented case of this. You don't simply drop dead because you see yourself bleeding. You MAY well pass out, but death from psychological trauma is rarer than hens teeth.


Isshia



Note: Hens no longer have teeth.

[Jrayjoker]

...Note: Hens no longer have teeth.

What?!?!? Wait, since when?



Is there a source online that a lay person could investigate strange gunshot deaths?

[Jrayjoker]

perhaps "strange" should read "improbable".

[Cantankerous]

What?!?!? Wait, since when?

Part of an old joke based off of this prehistoric bird: Hens Teeth

Isshia

[Shiloh]

I'd like to read just ONE documented case of this. You don't simply drop dead because you see yourself bleeding. You MAY well pass out, but death from psychological trauma is rarer than hens teeth.

No, but it is conceivable that the vasoconstriction your body applies to limit blood loss from superficial injuries can get out of hand. It almost certainly has nothing at all to do with the *seeing* of the wound, and everything to do with an inappropriate physiological overreaction leading to decreased heart function which precipitates a lack of blood to the heart muscle and a vicious circle leading to arrest. Painful injuries are more likely to induce shock, so hand injuries are more likely to trigger such an unusual reaction.

Shock is physiological. And can be unpredictable.

[Jekolmy]

Sorry to necro the thread, but I was wondering if the boxes of damage needed for knockdown are pre-damage test or once they are inflicted... (I can see pre-test for a definitely more cinematic game)

[Muspellsheimr]

It is damage taken (DV - Resistance Hits), not damage value (Base DV + Net Hits), that determines knockdown.

[pbangarth]

Note: Hens no longer have teeth.

Well, they do when they're born.

http://chickscope.beckman.uiuc.edu/resourc...procedures.html

Peter

[TheOOB]

Any attack that does in excess of your body in damage is a pretty serious blow which more then likely resulted in some bone and muscle damage, when you take several of your muscles and/or bones failing/weakening(when can cause you to lose your balance) combined with the pain and shock of being shot you will more then likely collapse. The human body holds a surprisingly delicate balance, try standing completely still and erect and do not move a muscle, physics says you will fall.

Basically, it's not so much knock down as fall down.

[masterofm]

A gun shot wound is a menagerie of pain stacked high in between two pieces of shit. Seriously I would say it is everything and nothing about this argument. Sometimes people will go into panic and shock when getting hit by a bullet, sometimes they might just get back up or not even fall over (especially if you know its coming.) Man the reasons are varied and each and every individual getting shot will probably not fall under one very specific type of "you will deal with getting shot this way."

[Jekolmy]

It is damage taken (DV - Resistance Hits), not damage value (Base DV + Net Hits), that determines knockdown.

Or ten boxes of damage... regardless of the body. Hmm thats pretty fun and quite possibly very useful.

[Marvelous Marvin]

Not to be a curmudgeon or anything, but this sounds to me like an unnecessary encumbrance to the system.

[Neraph]

Part of an old joke based off of this prehistoric bird: Hens Teeth

Isshia

That's a very interesting drawing, but all I see is a drawing.

[Aaron]

Not to be a curmudgeon or anything, but this sounds to me like an unnecessary encumbrance to the system.

I find that it gives me, as the GM, an excuse to not keep shooting the n00b PC who's standing in the middle of the street getting shot at. It also gives NPCs with low Professional Ratings a chance to surrender without having to fight to the death. I've thought the rule was a Good Thing ever since I first read it.

[AllTheNothing]

CAN there be? Sure. Does there need to be? Absolutely no. You can also, with the same person, just shrug and walk on as if nothing at all happened period. Why would it be a learned response one time and not the other?

The more likely explanation is a physiological one. Maybe you were nearing an electrolyte deficit as it was, before the accident. There are so many contributing factors to human physiology and how it operates in this situation THIS TIME and why it operates completely differently another time that simply because nothing obvious was happening doesn't mean that the explanation wasn't almost entirely physiological.

I know that I've sometimes felt faint after donating blood and that after I was shot (and lost more than twice as much blood as I would have from a donation) I jumped (literally) right back up and scrambled on. Adrenaline pumping through you can produce some drastic effects. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)


Isshia

Ok I know I probably should mind my own buisness but.... about you being shot... Who (pulled the trigger)? Wher? When? Why?

P.S.
I can conferm adrenalin works wonders; my problem is that usualy when its effect endes my blood pressure tend to drop below my feet.

[Method]

Okay, medically speaking, almost everyone who has posted so far is right to some degree.

The problem here is that there are so many variables (balance, force, anatomy, weapon caliber, wound channel, etc) that just about every gun shot wound is different. If you were to only look at static physics then the majority of gunshots would not knock anyone down. But there is a lot more at work.

Physiologically, there is definitely psychosomatic component (look up vasovagal response, for example). This is not shock, but can cause serious issues. "Shock", BTW is a very vague term. It includes, hemodynamic (i.e.- blood loss), cardiogenic, neurogenic and septic varieties. Neurogenic shock could cause someone to instantly fall down when shot, but that generally requires CNS damage. Hemodynamic shock can also be very fast, because it has more to do with how your body distributes blood than how much blood you actually loose (thus the big tough guy that dies from a "minor" injury).

Also there are numerous negative feedback reflex arcs that cause your muscles to go limp in response to pain or damage. The deep tendon reflexes your doctor checks give a little glimpse of how this works, but a better example would be people with knee injuries that have the sensation of their knee "giving out". Anatomically, the straightened knee is VERY stable, but when your pain receptors fire all the stabilizing muscles relax and you fall. And then of coarse you have autonomic responses like the "adrenalin" response. And endogenous opiates like enkephalins. And so on and so on.

Anyway, my point is that any and all of the physiological responses people have mentioned can and do play a role in "knock down" but its probably a little over generalized to say that any one mechanism is responsible all the time. It depends a lot on physics (balance, momentum, biomechanics, etc), where you get hit, how much damage is done AND your perceptions of what is happening. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

EDIT: Interesting read here. page 45 says that according to EEG studies "trauma almost instantly induced global cerebral dysfunction". Good times.

[AngelisStorm]

I think everyone has good points (and especially the folks who said there are two many variables involved).

I think the "Voodoo Factor" needs to be taken into account. People really can will themselves to death. Because they think they should die, they will waste away. The reverse is true with "Sugar Pills." The headaches of a majority of patients (in a study who recieved sugar pills instead of pain killer) went away, either partially or totally.

On the other hand, look at the famous shoot out between the bank robbers and the police, when the robbers where in full kelvar. Those guys just wouldn't go do.

On a similar note, the problem the police had with the .38 was that it didn't consistantly stop the target on the first shot. Similar problem with the M16. Soldiers officially complain that the caliber is to small, but "officials" (military brass tied in with the weapon, and scientists) tell them that it simply isn't true.

And there is the suprise factor. I think everyone here has been blind sided before, even when they were expecting something similar. I know on a couple of occasions when boffering, someone I didn't see landed an accidental headshot and I dropped. I was fine after a second of figuring out what happened, but when your suprised by damage one of the instincts is to roll into a ball. Even if you are expecting the type of attack. So mental state on that one.

K, think that's enough (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) 's for me.

[TheOOB]

The truth is, whether or not a wound is fatal, most people will be out of a fight after a single good wound of any caliber. Most non combatants will play dead or run away once they start taking wound penalties, and even experienced fighters are going to lose a bit of their composure for a moment after taking a nasty blow.

Regardless of how realistic it is though, I'm not giving up leveling my shotgun at my opponent and shooting them through the window, it's just too darn awesome and fun, and really that's what it all boils down to.

[kzt]

On a similar note, the problem the police had with the .38 was that it didn't consistantly stop the target on the first shot. Similar problem with the M16. Soldiers officially complain that the caliber is to small, but "officials" (military brass tied in with the weapon, and scientists) tell them that it simply isn't true.

Pistols suck for stopping people intending to do you harm. Unlike SR, they are not a "tiny bit" inferior to shotguns and rifles, they are hugely inferior. I know a guy who shot a thug (who had just shot his partner) 11 times because the thug didn't stop trying to shoot him until he'd been hit 11 times. And it really doesn't matter what caliber they are, they all suck. .45s suck less then .22s, but .45s still suck compared to a 12 gauge. Not that a .25 or a .45 can't kill you dead, but they tend to not be very effective in stopping people right now.

I'm told that the dirty secret about the deployment of the .45 to replace the .38 was that the .45 was about as ineffective in stopping a worked up Moro as the .38, but it made troops feel better.

[AngelisStorm]

(And the .45 has a clip, which probably helped to.)

I think saying they "suck" is a bit much though. Pistols will kill you dead quite throughly, just like any gun will. (A .22 might richochet off your skull... but if it goes inside, it's likely to bounce around in your skull.)

Was the guy who needed to be shot 11 times on drugs? (I've heard of similar instances, but all the ones I recall off the top of my head involved someone out of their mind on drugs.)

[kzt]

They DO suck. Pistols are the gun you have when you didn't think you needed a gun, not the gun you take when you expect to need a gun. There was an 11 year old kid (in 1988) who shot two guys who broke into his house. He fired 3 shots from .22lr rifle at them. Both of them died, one in the backyard, the other behind the wheel of his car. I still wouldn't suggest a .22lr as good round for personal defense. They certainly had enough time to have messed him up if they hadn't bolted.

I didn't ask the details, as the point of his story was that he got charged for the shooting, as the ADA couldn't believe that it was needed. I mean, it never happens that way on TV. Luckily the replacement ADA decided that this case wasn't likely to produce the great white defendant, being the guy who got shot (I can't remember if he died, or if was stated) had just shot a cop and had a long record of violent crimes.

But aggressive motivated people, on drugs or not, can take a huge amount of damage and keep coming, particularly from pistols, but nothing short of a HMG or autocannon can reliably produce one-shot stops. The guy above said the only actual one-shot stop he ever got was from a .50 BMG round in vietnam. .38, 9mm, .45 pistols, 9mm SMGs, M16s, M60s, shotguns all required multiple hits to put down motivated people.

I've seen autopsy pictures of a guy who looked like he had a bad case of measles due to 30 some 9mm holes in him. The 12 gauge slug that dropped him broke his pelvis, at which point he dropped the gun and said "I give up, stop shooting me". Then expired.

Another cop talked about the escaped prisoner they chased for a mile across the desert after he got shot in the buttocks with a slug. It skidded along the femur and lodged behind his knee. The guy stopped when the leg cramped up so he couldn't run any further. He recovered fully.

[Critias]

(And the .45 has a clip, which probably helped to.)

Magazine, please.

[Fortune]

I think the distinction is kind of silly. Everyone knows what item the term 'clip' is referencing in this context. The word 'clip' is in common use for that item around the world, and has been for a very, very long time. The English language adapts and adopts quickly when it comes to new words for old meanings, and new meanings for old words. As an example, the words 'google', 'bling', and 'muggle' have not been in common use for anywhere near as long as 'clip' (in this particular context and meaning), and they have all been officially accepted (by whomever decides these things) into the English language.

[Zen Shooter01]

The idea proffered earlier that falling down after being shot is a "learned response" is just nonsense. I've seen a lot of kung fu on TV, that doesn't mean I'm going to automatically deploy it if someone unexpectedly tries to punch my face.

In the American Revolution, a lot of people on the battlefield who got shot fell down. They didn't learn to do that from watching TV.

[Starmage21]

Magazine, please.

Both technically correct. Magazines feed the rounds into the chamber, clips hold the bullets. The "things" we're used to seeing nowadays are actually both

[Zen Shooter01]

kzt: I have to take exception to your statement that a pistol is the gun you take when you didn't think you would need a gun. A pistol is the gun I take almost every time, for practical reasons. I've got a Florida state concealed permit. A 12-gauge autoloader on a single point sling is a little awkward down at the mall, practically and socially. And I can expect that any deadly force confrontation I get into will happen at 15 feet or less, where my 1911 will serve very well when it comes out from under my shirt.

[Ed_209a]

Both KZT and Zen have points here.

KZT is right in that if you _know_ you will be walking into trouble later, you will want more than a handgun, any handgun.

However, Zen is right in that in the event of surprise situations, a handgun that is handy (and practical) enough to carry all the time will be more helpful than the 12-ga auto that is back in the truck.

[Blade]

I don't know about you guys, but if I know I will be walking into the kind of trouble which would require me to use a gun later, I'd rather try to find a way not to walk into this instead of getting a gun...

[masterofm]

At that point why not carry a panther cannon, with a drone that has a rocket launcher, and a mortar with White Phosphorous rounds.

[Ed_209a]

I don't know about you guys, but if I know I will be walking into the kind of trouble which would require me to use a gun later, I'd rather try to find a way not to walk into this instead of getting a gun...

Gotta agree with you there. Maybe I should have said "..if you know you have to walk into trouble later..."

[hobgoblin]

At that point why not carry a panther cannon, with a drone that has a rocket launcher, and a mortar with White Phosphorous rounds.

you know your in for a bad day when packing for a trip to the corner involves gear meant for mechanized infantry (IMG:style_emoticons/default/silly.gif)

[Critias]

I think the distinction is kind of silly. Everyone knows what item the term 'clip' is referencing in this context. The word 'clip' is in common use for that item around the world, and has been for a very, very long time. The English language adapts and adopts quickly when it comes to new words for old meanings, and new meanings for old words. As an example, the words 'google', 'bling', and 'muggle' have not been in common use for anywhere near as long as 'clip' (in this particular context and meaning), and they have all been officially accepted (by whomever decides these things) into the English language.

*sigh*

Nevermind.

[TheOneRonin]

I think the distinction is kind of silly. Everyone knows what item the term 'clip' is referencing in this context. The word 'clip' is in common use for that item around the world, and has been for a very, very long time. The English language adapts and adopts quickly when it comes to new words for old meanings, and new meanings for old words. As an example, the words 'google', 'bling', and 'muggle' have not been in common use for anywhere near as long as 'clip' (in this particular context and meaning), and they have all been officially accepted (by whomever decides these things) into the English language.

I don't think Critias was trying to say that "clip" is incorrect because no one knows what the poster is talking about. However, I'm with him on encouraging people to use the correct term for the item they are trying to describe. Just because "clip" is commonly used when talking about a "magazine" doesn't mean that we should encourage people to use the wrong term, regardless of the context.

I work in IT, and this sort of thing happens all the time when dealing with non-technical users. I'd rather teach them the correct term for something and encourage them to use it rather then let them keep calling their PC a "modem", even when I know exactly what they are talking about in the context of the conversation.

[Method]

The idea proffered earlier that falling down after being shot is a "learned response" is just nonsense.

Calling it a "learned response" may be giving a little too much credit to the forebrain, but there is undoubtably a psychological component to how people experience (and thus respond) to pain and trauma. I see this every day. People who come into surgery anxious or afraid have more pain than others from the same proceedure. Its why anesthesiologist routinely use benzo's to induce anesthesia. You can take just about any medication and substitute the same pharmacological compound in a pill that is smaller, more expensive or red and the patient will report improvement in their symptoms. They have done RCTs that show that pain medications are more effective when the doctor says the words "this will help with your pain" than when the drug is just given without explaination.

There is a torture technique where you show the vitcim hot irons and describe in detail the trauma that is about to happen. Then they blindfold the person and press ice against their skin. The victims feel burning. The power of subtle suggestion on the human mind should not be underestimated.

I'm about a year away from officially being a doctor. I also happen to be an avid shooter and I routiunely carry a 1911 (and I have carefully chosen this caliber for reasons that would be better suited to another post). In any event I do not expect an attacker to just fall down, but there IS good evidence that part of what we call "knock down" IS psychological.

[masterofm]

@ Hobogoblin - Oh you silly silly man. If you are taking on mechanized infantry you must call in your favor from a great dragon and deploy seven tac-nukes. If your going to the store you always pack ten times more then you will probably need. I mean if I was going to the store I would take a panther cannon because no one will be able to see it. That is why every shadowrunner wears a trench because you can hide a six foot cannon in three to four feet of black coat. Geeze do the math man... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohplease.gif)

[TheOneRonin]

kzt: I have to take exception to your statement that a pistol is the gun you take when you didn't think you would need a gun. A pistol is the gun I take almost every time, for practical reasons. I've got a Florida state concealed permit. A 12-gauge autoloader on a single point sling is a little awkward down at the mall, practically and socially. And I can expect that any deadly force confrontation I get into will happen at 15 feet or less, where my 1911 will serve very well when it comes out from under my shirt.

A pistol/handgun is a compromise. It's obviously better to carry one than to be unarmed, but when it comes to killing bad guys, it's really at the bottom of the firearms effectiveness ladder. Obviously, your .1911 sits higher on the effectiveness hierarchy than your fists or a pocket knife. And while that makes it a more effective "defense measure" than many others, it doesn't make it a better "firearm". Like KZT said, a pistol is the MOST BOTTOM END firearm you can use. Pretty much every thing else is better AT KILLING BADGUYS. You can't necessarily conceal-carry other weapon systems, but other firearms are UNEQUIVOCALLY better at killing people than pistols.

[child of insanit...]

At that point why not carry a panther cannon, with a drone that has a rocket launcher, and a mortar with White Phosphorous rounds.

i see you've been talking to my players...(IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Whipstitch]

Yeah, see, and unless you're crazy, I bet you don't really see using your pistol at the mall as some kind of inevitability. On the other hand, show me a soldier using a pistol in an active warzone and I'll show you a guy trying to get to a rifle.

[TheOneRonin]

Yeah, see, and unless you're crazy, I bet you don't really see using your pistol at the mall as some kind of inevitability. On the other hand, show me a soldier using a pistol in a warzone and I'll show you a guy trying to get to a rifle.

Amen ma brotha!

Now if only the SR devs understood/embraced that truth...

[Fortune]

However, I'm with him on encouraging people to use the correct term for the item they are trying to describe. Just because "clip" is commonly used when talking about a "magazine" doesn't mean that we should encourage people to use the wrong term, regardless of the context.

My point is that common use makes it a correct term. Not necessarily the only correct term, but correct none-the-less. There are many examples of this type of phenomenon in the English language.

[AngelisStorm]

Phew, come on folks. Magazine might be the technically correct term, but clip is the (significantly) more common use term for the object.

It's communication. It got the idea across to everyone who read it, and they knew what I said. It wasn't some bastardized lingo that only a small subculture understands (or a degenerate majority for that matter).

And I stand by that saying (almost) any gun "sucks" is just silly. Guns are excellent weapons. In close quarters pistols are significantly more useful than a full rifle, otherwise they wouldn't bother with smg's or carbines. They are concealable and light weight.

No, they are not as efficient at killing people. That is not thet point of a pistol. But that does not mean they suck. Both sides of this arguement have merit. There are TONS of stories about people getting shot multiple times and still going. There are just as many stories (I am willing to bet more) about people who fall down and either die or pass out (or are completely incapacited) after being shot only once.

[Platinum Dragon]

A pistol/handgun is a compromise. It's obviously better to carry one than to be unarmed, *snip*

Depends on your situation. For personal defense in urban areas, I would say learning Aikedo or Judo and going unarmed would do a lot better than toting a pistol around. You'd be far more able to defend against surprise attacks, and adrenaline-fuelled muggers who are liable to shrug off multiple gunshot wounds before going down.

In a warzone, however, where there is a high chance of threats at a distance who also have guns, sure a pistol is better than nothing, but a rifle is even better. Pistols exist so that soldiers can carry something for when their rifle jams, and so that civillians have an excuse to carry a gun to the corner shop.

[Method]

For personal defense in urban areas, I would say learning Aikedo or Judo...

Or even aikido... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[kzt]

If you are young, in good shape, and up to spending 6 hours a week for the rest of your life (after the 5 years or so it takes to gain basic mastery of the skill) it would work ok, if the person attacking you didn't have a weapon. It's hard to use your judo fu on a guy with a gun without getting kind of perforated, as closing those last few feet are really difficult. It's hard for even a poor shot to miss at 3 feet. And against people with knives you are going to leave a lot of blood on the floor, only in the movies does anybody go HtH against a guy with a knife and not get cut.

Depends on your situation. For personal defense in urban areas, I would say learning Aikedo or Judo and going unarmed would do a lot better than toting a pistol around. You'd be far more able to defend against surprise attacks, and adrenaline-fuelled muggers who are liable to shrug off multiple gunshot wounds before going down.

In a warzone, however, where there is a high chance of threats at a distance who also have guns, sure a pistol is better than nothing, but a rifle is even better. Pistols exist so that soldiers can carry something for when their rifle jams, and so that civillians have an excuse to carry a gun to the corner shop.

[Platinum Dragon]

Or even aikido... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Sorry, I cannot brain today, I have the dumb.

[Method]

Ha!! I'm so going to use that...

I agree with kzt, but I also think its dangerous to assume you can just go buy a gun and be ready to defend yourself. You need to train with a gun too. Maybe not as much as is needed to "master" a martial art, and it may not be as physically demanding, but you need to train none the less.

[Platinum Dragon]

If you are young, in good shape, and up to spending 6 hours a week for the rest of your life (after the 5 years or so it takes to gain basic mastery of the skill) it would work ok, if the person attacking you didn't have a weapon. It's hard to use your judo fu on a guy with a gun without getting kind of perforated, as closing those last few feet are really difficult. It's hard for even a poor shot to miss at 3 feet. And against people with knives you are going to leave a lot of blood on the floor, only in the movies does anybody go HtH against a guy with a knife and not get cut.

If someone has a gun aimed at you at a distance of 3 feet, drawing your piece is going to get you just as perforated as rushing at them.

As for learning self-defense:

a) It doesn't take anywhere near 5 years to be able to use it in a practical situation
b) You don't have to do it for the rest of your life, the basic techniques are repeated until they're learned into muscle-memory - it's literally like riding a bike, you get rusty, but you never really lose the ability. Not to mention that you have to frequently train with a pistol to keep accurate with it anyway.
c) You neither have to be young, nor fit; I picked Aikido and Judo because they're styles designed to use an opponent's strength against them, particularly Aikido.

And you don't attack the guy with the knife. You disarm and floor him if/when he attacks you. Having basic defensive training for close-quarters will keep you a lot more safe than a firearm will, and doesn't take significantly more time to learn than shooting accurately.

[Method]

er.. NM wrong thread

[Snow_Fox]

Boy, I stay away a few days and this comes up. Platnum Dragon I have a 2nd degree brown belt in aikido. I have a carry permit. I'm 5' 1" If I get into trouble I'd prefer to use the .38 or .380 than let them get near enough for hand to hand. Yes I have used the aikido in New York on a mugger. He got years inside and a crippled arm for his trouble.

Back on topic the myth busters didn'ty work because it was based on a solid stand. I agree that you're not getting the clint Eastwood shot of sending someone flying backward but a hit off center on a running target is probably going to send the person down because you're altering the balance point.

Fortune, I have to disagree that common usage does not make something correct. That just ain't so. Or let me axe you this, do you photocopy or xerox something? ok enough of bad grammar, even by my standards here.

As for the idea of a gun having enough 'umph' to knock someone down having enough recoil to push the shooter back is just wrong. Depending on the weapon a lot of the recoil can be absorb or even rechaneled by the weapon itself. The best example I can give is a .357 & a .38. I have a S&W .38 with a 2 inch barrell and made of light weight allows. It gives me a good sized bullet with a fairly small bulge. But the light alloys means that it has nothing to absorb the recoil and the whole kick is transfered to my hand. I go through a box at the range and my hand aches afterward.

I also have a S&W .357 magnum with a 4 inch barrel and heavy metals. even firing the magnum rounds with the heavier charge I go through a box of those at the range and I can feel it between my shoulders for an hour or so and that's it.

I used to have a Mataba Unica 6 (yeah the gun Togasa has in GitS) a semi-automatic .357 magnum revolver. The mechanism absobed all the recoil. I felt nothing. I could go through 2 boxes at the range and feel nothing afterward. Nowhtese are all revolvers. A semi automatic like a 9mm or .45 are going to likewise absorb all the force and transfer little to the shooter, they are designed to do that.

[Snow_Fox]

Ha!! I'm so going to use that...

I agree with kzt, but I also think its dangerous to assume you can just go buy a gun and be ready to defend yourself. You need to train with a gun too. Maybe not as much as is needed to "master" a martial art, and it may not be as physically demanding, but you need to train none the less.

Oh yes. The reason guns replaced bows in armies is that it is easier to train with them but you still need to train.
I carry a handgun, legally, but think it would be amazingly stupid and irrisponsible to do so without knowing the weapon inside out. I ham a .38 S&W with a 2 inch barrell to have at work, where it won't scare clients, but for distance work it's a bitch. the place where I bought it said it was probably good for 10 feet, then the kick of the big bullet with the short barrel and light materials would htrow it off. I've surprised the heck out of them at their range by working with it until I'm satisafied with my marksmanship (markswomanship?) at 30 feet.

[Method]

I'm right there with you, Snow Fox. I have trained in aikido for many, many years and I carry. Personally though it is because my aikido training plays much bigger role in my life than "self-defense". I could shoot someone in the face tomorrow, put down my gun and never touch another firearm for the rest of my life. Killing or seriously hurting someone with aikido on the other hand would profoundly change my relationship to training, and thats not something I am willing to do.

But then I'm a little weird like that...

[Snow_Fox]

I think I understand. The Aikido is a part of you at this point and the idea you could, that it could, truly f' up somone can be heavy. I must say I felt no remorse at the guy I put in the hospital and didn't lose any sleep over it but I suspect we have a slightly different view of a large male attacker grabbing you. I did get un nerved by his screams while the police waited for an ambulance.

[AngelisStorm]

That is really cool Snow Fox, I had no idea Togasa's pistol was real.

[Fortune]

Fortune, I have to disagree that common usage does not make something correct. That just ain't so.

'Ain't' is included in the English language lexicon, as are the other words I listed earlier, and many, many others that have come about and been accepted through common usage alone.

As for 'clip', it is an accepted term, even among professionals (I know more than a few), and seems to be more commonly used worldwide for the item in question than the term 'magazine'.

Be all that as it may though, this is a Shadowrun forum. In Shadowrun, the terms are very specifically defined. A 'clip' refers to a removable box magazine-type object, while the term 'magazine' refers to an internal ammunition reservoir-type mechanism. Therefore, on this forum, the term 'magazine' is actually incorrect when used in reference to the detachable box-type ammunition dispenser. The proper term for that item in the context of Shadowrun is most definitely 'clip'. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[AngelisStorm]

Right, I totally spaced on that one Fortune. Meant to write it above.

[Fortune]

To belabor a point ...

From Dictionary.com ...

Clip

1. a device that grips and holds tightly.
2. a metal or plastic clasp for holding together papers, letters, etc.
3. cartridge clip.*
4. an article of jewelry or other decoration clipped onto clothing, shoes, hats, etc.
5. a flange on the upper surface of a horseshoe.
6. Also called lug. Shipbuilding. a short length of angle iron connecting and maintaining the angle between two members or surfaces.
7. Archaic. an embrace.

Clip

1. Any of various devices for gripping or holding things together; a clasp or fastener.
2. A piece of jewelry that fastens with a clasp or clip; a brooch.
3. A cartridge clip.*

Clip

1. a metal frame or container holding cartridges; can be inserted into an automatic gun [syn: cartridge holder]
2. an instance or single occasion for some event; "this time he succeeded"; "he called four times"; "he could do ten at a clip" [syn: time]
3. any of various small fasteners used to hold loose articles together
4. an article of jewelry that can be clipped onto a hat or dress
5. the act of clipping or snipping
6. a sharp slanting blow; "he gave me a clip on the ear"

* Cartridge Clip is defined thusly from the same source ...

cartridge clip

n. A metal container or frame for holding cartridges to be loaded into an automatic rifle or pistol. Also called ammunition clip.

cartridge clip

noun
a metal frame or container holding cartridges; can be inserted into an automatic gun [syn: cartridge holder]

[Snow_Fox]

Maybe but in that context it is incorrect, a real 'clip' is what is fed into a magazine, it hold bullets for loading instead of having htme rattle around loose. the mag' is what actually holds the ammo in the gun, the best example most american would know is the M-1 garrand. bullets were held in clips and the clips were fed into the rifle's magazine for firing. If you watch the omaha beach scene in 'Private ryan the 'clip' is the thing ejected with a metalic ringing when they empty their rifles.

That is really cool Snow Fox, I had no idea Togasa's pistol was real.

Yeah, fragging huge, too big for me to carry concealed, maybe a guy can, wonderfully accurate but damn finiky.

[Thadeus Bearpaw]

Amen ma brotha!

Now if only the SR devs understood/embraced that truth...

Yeah my players consider going dressed down as carrying only one weapon, wearing only the personal protective armor, and packing a grenade and melee weapon in case of emergency. Whether they are going to the mall, meeting a Johnson, or heading down the Stuffer Shack they assume that any moment the evil moments of fate will catch them with their pants down and gauss rifles at home.

[Fortune]

Maybe but in that context it is incorrect, a real 'clip' is what is fed into a magazine, it hold bullets for loading instead of having htme rattle around loose. the mag' is what actually holds the ammo in the gun, the best example most american would know is the M-1 garrand. bullets were held in clips and the clips were fed into the rifle's magazine for firing. If you watch the omaha beach scene in 'Private ryan the 'clip' is the thing ejected with a metalic ringing when they empty their rifles.

I'm really not that stupid or uninformed, despite your repeated (unsuccessful) attempts over the years to make me look that way.

Note the use of the word 'pistol' in the definition. No pistol that I know of is loaded in the manner you describe (similar to the M-1 Garand). Even if there were a single example of such a pistol, it does not appear to be well-known enough to warrant its inclusion in the definition. Clearly the term 'clip' is being defined as both ... the M-1-style ammunition holder as well as a detachable box ammunition dispenser (a magazine, if you will).

[Shrapnel]

I'm really not that stupid or uninformed, despite your repeated (unsuccessful) attempts over the years to make me look that way.

Note the use of the word 'pistol' in the definition. No pistol that I know of is loaded in the manner you describe (similar to the M-1 Garand). Even if there were a single example of such a pistol, it does not appear to be well-known enough to warrant its inclusion in the definition. Clearly the term 'clip' is being defined as both ... the M-1-style ammunition holder as well as a detachable box ammunition dispenser (a magazine, if you will).

You can use half-moon and full-moon clips in revolvers that use rimless cartridges, such as the .45 ACP.

Now back to your regularly scheduled arguement... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/extinguish.gif)

[Fortune]

Fair enough, although I maintain I have honestly never seen a pistol reloaded in the same manner as an M-1 Garand (what would be the point when you can just pop out the empty ammunition dispenser and replace it with a full one?). Of course, that still doesn't challenge the 'frames or containers' portion of the definition though.

Really, I just don't see the fuss. Language changes (especially English), with terminology being added and words being redefined all the time. While 'magazine' may very well have once been the only correct term for a detachable box ammunition dispenser, that is clearly not the case nowadays.

[Platinum Dragon]

To be fair, I heard ammunition cartridges called 'clips' years before I ever heard of them being refered to as 'magazines.' You're probably less likely to cause cofusion with the layman by saying 'clip,' regardless of how incorrect it may be.

[psychophipps]

b) You don't have to do it for the rest of your life, the basic techniques are repeated until they're learned into muscle-memory - it's literally like riding a bike, you get rusty, but you never really lose the ability. Not to mention that you have to frequently train with a pistol to keep accurate with it anyway.

And you don't attack the guy with the knife. You disarm and floor him if/when he attacks you. Having basic defensive training for close-quarters will keep you a lot more safe than a firearm will, and doesn't take significantly more time to learn than shooting accurately.

There is a reason why the quote isn't, "God didn't create all men equal, O-sensei did", my friend.

Martial arts is actually even more perishable than firearms training due to the higher complexity of the movements. Don't believe me? Try taking two years off from your Aikido studies and head back into the dojo. You will be very unpleasantly surprised, I promise. "Rusty" is a word for it, but I would use "You move like pregnant yak... *bad oriental accent*" as it is much more accurate, IMO. I had done this very thing and, well, I was as much of a danger to myself as my training partner because I could remember all the cool stuff I wasn't capable of effectively doing anymore but didn't have the brains to realize that they were all bad ideas.

Range is safety. I don't care if you make Bruce/Jet Lee/Li look like little bitches or not. Knives aren't something to be trifled with and a smart man would rather take care o' biz before the knife becomes an issue than deal with the weapon while it's within it's operational range. Anything else smacks of hubris and history has a whole mess of dead folks in it from hubris.

[Platinum Dragon]

There is a reason why the quote isn't, "God didn't create all men equal, O-sensei did", my friend.

Martial arts is actually even more perishable than firearms training due to the higher complexity of the movements. Don't believe me? Try taking two years off from your Aikido studies and head back into the dojo. You will be very unpleasantly surprised, I promise. "Rusty" is a word for it, but I would use "You move like pregnant yak... *bad oriental accent*" as it is much more accurate, IMO. I had done this very thing and, well, I was as much of a danger to myself as my training partner because I could remember all the cool stuff I wasn't capable of effectively doing anymore but didn't have the brains to realize that they were all bad ideas.

Range is safety. I don't care if you make Bruce/Jet Lee/Li look like little bitches or not. Knives aren't something to be trifled with and a smart man would rather take care o' biz before the knife becomes an issue than deal with the weapon while it's within it's operational range. Anything else smacks of hubris and history has a whole mess of dead folks in it from hubris.

I stand corrected. I'd still, personally, rather risk breaking my attacker's arm than killing him, but that's just me.

Kind of a moot point though, since the crime-rates here in Australia are low enough that I'll likely never have to know the first thing about defending myself. I do, I just doubt I'll ever need that knowledge.