Talk:Firearm errors in media

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 February 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article is within the scope of the Firearms WikiProject, a project devoted to the improvement of firearms coverage on Wikipedia with an emphasis on civilian firearms. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Guideline for inclusion*

A "firearm error in media" is the erroneous portrayal, use, or description of an existent firearm in a non-fiction movie, television program, or print or electronic publication. This guideline does not relieve the editor from following all other Wikipedia guidelines such as notability. Portrayal, use, or description of a firearm in a fictional work that contradicts the real world is not considered an error and therefore should not be included in this list based on that fact alone. *Please discuss guidelines in guideline discussions below

Contents 1 Uncategorized entries 2 List cruft? 3 Okay, what? 4 Another myth? 5 Removed from the article 6 Incorrect Myth? 7 Assault Rifles CANNOT tear people in half 8 Standards of inclusion and notability? 9 Inclusion of references and sources 10 Helicopter Sniper 11 Firing a weapon indoors (esp a handgun) without hearing difficulties 12 AK-47s are notoriously inaccurate 13 Proposal: Guidelines for Inclusion 14 Handguns and recoil

[edit] Uncategorized entries

Citings needed for all of these. As a gun enthusiast, and owner of many of these guns, These myths are also myths. I can easily and frequently do fire a 12 Ga sawed off shotgun one handed.

You have an AOW? What barrel length and does it include a pistol grip?

I can also fire a pistol accurately at any angle.

Either we are talking short range or someone who has 10's of thousands of rounds through a particular type. Just the fact that the sights on most pistols are regulated for about 10-25m and that the assumption is you are firing with the weapon held vertically would require extreme familiarity with the weapon to predict the deviation from the sights for ranges beyond where the ballistic arc produces enough drop to miss the target otherwise. At point blank ranges, that differnce is measured in fractions of an inch and doesn't particularly matter, but any further...

The M60, being gas operated, has a much lower recoil than one might expect. The expectation of accuracy by a belt fed machine gun is itself in question, and is a subjective one.

- I carried one of these things around for 6 years, and I know how it works. At a 200 yards range one can pop 8 out of 10 rounds into a target the size of a coffee mug. (Stock NATO full jackets, nothing fancy here) What´t the subjective about that ?

The typical definition of accuracy for a machine gun is technically different for a machine gun (cone of fire vs. group for example), but in this case the accuracy is assumed to be a particular target either human-sized or whatever small (say 2m x 1m) area you happen to be aiming at. I understand that eventually, most humans of sufficient strength handed an M60 with enough rounds, perhaps a tracer mix, are going to be able to hit a static target or predictably moving target given a long enough exposure time. However, assuming the target doesn't want to get hit or requires a weight of fire at a particular (short) time... firing single handed tends to be very innacurate at more than a couple feet. Deathbunny 02:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List cruft?

Ummm... the whole thing is a list of myths that, beyond being myths, do not lend themselves to an elaborately written set of continuous paragraphs with the number there are. It would be like an article on the schools of the US states where each individual state is given a single paragraph... Or maybe that's just me.Deathbunny 02:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Okay, what?

If expanding bullets have better stopping power, and "Dum-dums" expand, then... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.132.248.2 (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Come on, the article was obviously written by somebody who hasn´t got very much hands-on experience with firearms.

I've raised an eyebrow or two at certain things here myself. What specifically do you think is inaccurate? Friday (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another myth?

Should there be a section or entry about the myth that a gun blast, esp shotgun blast, will propel the victim backwards? It's not true, according to physics law & a demo I saw on TV. Tommyt 18:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It's already in there. Friday (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed from the article

I removed this:

• Sawed-off shotguns can't be fired one-handed, such as in the film Mad Max. The 12 Gauge round is too powerful to be wielded in one hand by most people. This force on an unsupported wrist can sprain the wrist or worse. Additionally, the recoil may cause the shooter to lose control of the weapon.

Someone had just changed this from "can" to "can't"- perhaps there's no agreement here? Also, I see no source for this. The power of a round has nothing to do with whether it could be wielded in one hand- this would only change what happens after you fire it. What this does to your hand is going to depend a hell of lot on the type of grip involved, I'd say. Anyway, I've removed this to the talk page for now, since there's disagreement. Friday (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

FWIW... I've actually done this (fired a pistol-gripped shotgun with one hand). I easily hit what I was aiming at, but it was no fun on my wrist (nothing broken/sprained, but it hurt). I'm unlikely to ever do it again. Buuutt... strictly speaking, it is possible to do controlably. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect Myth?

One of the myths is that things like car doors can stop bullets, but in "Fax From Sarajevo", a nonfictional account, sacks full of comic books are used for bulletproofing against snipers and work surprisingly well.(Then again, maybe this only works in a moving car--I would think the forward motion would do something weird to the trajectories and such.)

[edit] Assault Rifles CANNOT tear people in half

Somebody keeps adding this myth and listing it as true. It is indeed NOT true, and you're going to have to find REAL REFERENCES and SOURCES to prove that the AK-47 and M16 actually DID tear people to shreds (decapitating, tearing in half, neutering???) in Vietnam. I'm getting sick of this edit battle, please stop adding it unless you have some real sources. RavenStorm 16:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter, the article is about to be erased. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 17:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making yourself useful. RavenStorm 18:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you think assault rifles can split people in half?

I just know they don't. Find me a source which proves this, and I will include it. We work with references and sources here buddy. And don't give me that "find me a source that proves they DON'T tear people in half," it's not going to work. RavenStorm 04:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls man. They'll keep coming back. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 08:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Revragnarok, I received your message and decided to discuss the issue over this article in a discursive manner. This whole edit battle is just getting us nowhere. Please reply as soon as you read this. User:71.178.56.243

I'd also be happy to discuss this with you too, RavenStorm. User:71.178.56.243

Thank you, uh, I'll just call you User 71 (short for your IP). I've been in too many edit battles, but the policy of Wikipedia is that these battles should be discussed on the article's talk page instead of occuring over a series of edit summaries. Now, you've shown a lot of interest in this article, as it seems... your Contributions page shows that you've edited nothing else on Wikipedia other than this article. Unfortunately, despite your best intentions, a claim such as "assault rifles can tear people in half" is simply too disagreeable to be posted without proper sources and references. Find me proof that assault rifles can tear people in half and I may consider it to be true. But even then, that does not mean this should be included in the article: read the policy on top of the talk page! A firearm myth is the "erroneous portrayal, use, or description of an existent firearm in a non-fiction movie, television program, or print or electronic publication." A rumor or myth does not belong in this article anymore. Personally, I've seen a lot of combat footage, and most assault rifles poke small, precise and deadly holes in people, as opposed to "tearing them in half." Thank you for your maturity and patience. RavenStorm 15:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Standards of inclusion and notability?

I have a hard time with many of these so-called "myths" and now, "errors". I don't see how some can be considered notable enough to be included, in addition to whether they are actual myths, or even errors. For example:

Glock pistols will not be detected by metal detectors. This myth was publicized in the movie Die Hard II when John McClane made a comment about the nonexistent "Glock 7". This is corrected in the movie Lord of War when Yuri sells a drug lord a Glock and mentions that this is not true and not to attempt it. Glock handguns use steel slides and barrels, and though the frame largely consists of synthetic material, it does have molded in metal guide rails which would be impossible to remove without destroying the firearm. This means that none of the Glock's vital parts could pass through a metal detector undetected. Though the one in the movie is supposed to be entirely plastic.

Without verifying the facts, this paragraph eludes to a "myth" that is a plot device in a fictional film. Since it's a work of fiction, aren't the writters and cinematographers free to create whatever fantasy world they feel is necessary to tell their story? In such a scenario, can anything they say or do that contradicts the real world be considered an error? Unless the movie spawned a rash of morons trying to sneak their Glocks past airport metal detectors, then the Die Hard II "myth" is neither a myth or an error. And unless I'm wrong, Lord of War is also a work of fiction, in which a fantasy world was created in order to tell a story and since that fantasy world is not a continuation of the Die Hard II fantasy world, it can not "correct" a mistake made in that other fantasy.

So I have to ask, what are the standards for including an error in this list? Why is this myth considered a "firearm" myth, and not simply a part of the plot in a fictional movie? --JJLatWiki 19:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Because people unfamiliar with guns often tend to believe what they see in movies, for some unknown reason. And instead of inventing a new name for the nonexistent gun, they used the name of an actual make of pistols. But, you do have a point. Unless these are documented as myths, we shouldn't be calling them myths based on our own opinions and experiences. It's possible that the article rename helps somewhat with this. Friday (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That was kinda my point. Except that this entry about the fictional Glock is neither myth or error. If it's a "myth", then there is some requirement to show that it is a "popular belief". But, if it's an "error", then works of fiction must be excluded because they have no stipulation to conform to the real world. Do you agree? --JJLatWiki 20:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I found a source that mentions that the glock had a reputation for being un-metal-detectable. To me this source indicates that people did think this, but we want a better source, preferably about this myth rather than mentioning it in passing. Friday (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I found a better source. Apparently there was even legislation being kicked around related to this idea. This particular myth may be well-sourcable. Friday (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't have a source, but I remember seeing this in the news quite a bit back in the day. Everyone was all terrified that hijackers would be coming out in droves. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well done Friday. I think you've successfully qualified this as a myth. The Jack Anderson, WP article and subsequent Forbes article, and subsequent legislation seem to establish this as a true myth. A myth in the sense that it was an "invented story" that created a "popular" and "false collective belief" that was also "used to justify a social institution". Based on the dates, you've made it clear that the fiction writers of Die Hard II only took advantage of the myth for their story and the original source of the fiction was the Washington Post. Are you going to fix the entry and include your sources? --JJLatWiki 21:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Guys... usually we put sources on the article itslef. *does so* RavenStorm 22:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the article is titled "Firearm errors in media" not "Firearm myths in media," and its purpose is to debunk any errors that may or may not have sparked subsequent myths. Thus, errors in media that both have and have not caused myths should be included, but myths that are not shown in any media should not. Also, errors in media caused by myths should be included.

Tiejaz

Tiejaz, Wikipedia has guidelines regarding notability and errors that sparked myths go a long way toward establishing notability. Conversely, errors that do NOT spark subsequent myths are probably not noteworthy errors and therefor should probably NOT be included in Wikipedia. In addition, in my opinion, no characteristic of an object such as a firearm can be considered an "error" if that characteristic is part of a fictional production, because fictional works have no real-world constraints except those of which the creators choose to take advantage. Thus, in my opinion, entries in this article that originated from a fictional work MUST have somehow caused a notable error in the real-world. --JJLatWiki 15:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of references and sources

Good job to all editors working on this article! We've managed to increase the number of sources for this article from 0 to 10 in less than a month! Now all we need is more sources for the first section of the article before we can remove that "Lack of references" tag. Keep up the good work, we're doing great. RavenStorm 17:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Helicopter Sniper

In the movie SWAT, Gamble takes down a Helicopter (I am ignorant of the model) with a "big-boy rifle" firing .50 caliber rounds. He fired two rounds, both I believe into the cowling/mast area (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Helicopter_Anatomy.png). The first round caused it to bob quite a bit, and the second round grounded it. This seems highly unlikely to me. First of all, is it possible? If not, it probably belongs on this page, and the movie's Trivia section. If it is possible, my only problem is that it doesn't work in Saint's Row (kidding! I've tried.). Is it?

Tiejaz —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.127.122.7 (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

"The M82A2 (probably the one in the movie since it is the media's favorite military .50 cal sniper) was intended as a cheap anti-helicopter weapon, suitable for use against highly mobile targets when fired from the shoulder." Quoted from this article. Hope that clears it up. RavenStorm 02:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Firing a weapon indoors (esp a handgun) without hearing difficulties

This is a subject someone may wish to find references for and add: Firing a weapon indoors or even firing a handgun outdoors without hearing protection usually results in the inability to hear normally for a period of time ranging from seconds to minutes. You would not, for example, hear a person's footsteps in another room immediately after you or someone near you fired a typical centerfire handgun inside a building. --67.188.0.96 08:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Excluding works of fiction, where has this error appeared in the media? --JJLatWiki 16:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This is something I only recall seeing in works of fiction. Much of what is mentioned on this page references fictional works. Is the scope of this article intended to only to take on errors in news media reporting? --67.188.0.96 20:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I am promoting the establishment of guidelines for inclusion that would prohibit characteristics that exist only in fictional worlds. Obviously I have no authority in that regard, but I think such a limitation is the only way to make an article like this of any useful quality. There are infinite details in fictional worlds that contradict the real-world and documenting every one of them is a waste of time for the reader because they usually have no real-world consequence. For example, in Zorro 2, ***SPOILER ALERT*** Frey Filipe is shot point blank, but the bullet is stopped and becomes lodged in his Cross, thereby saving his life. Assuming such a feat is not possible in the real-world, is that an "error"? I say it is NOT an error, because the event takes place in a fictional world wherein all things are possible.

Personally, I don't think this article should exist. But since it does, editors have a responsbility to make it the highest quality it can be. In my opinion, if a movie element causes a notable real-world error or myth, only then should be be allowed in Wikipedia. I'm starting to think that the title should be, "Firearm errors and myths". --JJLatWiki 00:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you on your comments, including the tenuous value of this article as written. Perhaps a "Firearm myths and misconceptions" article instead of "errors"? --67.188.0.96 01:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It was already resolved as to whether or not this article should have been kept, so indeed we must try to make it the best it can be. JJLat, how about we find a definition as to which myths should be included? Something along the lines of... The erroneous use or description of an existant firearm in a realistic movie or television program is designated as a "firearm error in media." We should adopt this or something similar as our standard of notability and inclusion. RavenStorm 02:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favor of prescribing whatever we can to define a scope and definitions and limitations for this article. I like your phrase but I think "realistic" is too broad. On first blush, I would modify it to say, The erroneous portrayal, use, or description of an existant firearm in a non-fiction movie, television program, or print or electronic publication is designated as a "firearm error in media." I think we should also describe what is NOT considered an error. I think the normal Wikipedia guidelines of notability might suffice here, whether or not we say so. The most insignificant error could still be called a "firearm error in media", but if the error occurred in some small college radio show, it doesn't meet the WP notability standard and shouldn't be included here. --JJLatWiki 15:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that "non-fiction" line. Die Hard 2 was fiction, but the whole "Glocks can get through airport security" thing spread like wild-fire after the movie came out. How's non-fantasy or science fiction? RavenStorm 16:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I agree with including the Glock error because the fictional portrayal actually took place AFTER the non-fiction error and Die Hard 2 took advantage of the pre-existing myth, and therefor the actual error was in the only place an error can take place, in the real world. The notable error existed prior to Die Hard 2. However, in my opinion, only IF the fictional portrayal causes real-world errors should it be considered a "firearm error in media". So if the Die Hard 2 portrayal had happened first but never caused any real-world ripples, then it wouldn't be a firearm error. If Die Hard 2 had been a "docu-drama" of some sort, then I would accept the possibility that the Glock error was an actual error. But Die Hard is pure fiction that uses elements from the real-world to facilitate the story. They were free to say and do anything that would be impossible outside their fictional world and even the most significant movies yield too many contradictions to list and aren't notable or useful in themselves. IMO, fictional erroneous portrayals are only noteworthy if they ripple into the real world. I might accept errors in movies that make a serious attempt to live by the rules of the physical universe but are otherwise fictional like, Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, Saving Private Ryan, and even Forest Gump. But not errors in Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, or Predator. Not that I dislike any of those movies, but I bet there are at least a dozen firearms portrayals that intentionally contradict reality. --JJLatWiki 17:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess you're right then. I vote we adopt this rule and put it at the top of the Talk page if everybody agrees. That way we can stick to that rule and adjust the article accordingly. RavenStorm 19:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AK-47s are notoriously inaccurate

• AK-47s are notoriously inaccurate. In truth the AK-47 is fairly accurate, but not at long distances, which is what this myth usually refers to. The reason for this is because the AK-47 becomes unstable due to the violent movements of its working parts and recoil, from the large bullet it fires, as well as the muzzle climb, which occurs when it's firing. Despite these problems, the primary cause for its inaccuracy is actually because of its iron sight, which provides very bad aim. Futhermore, the AK-47 was only intended to be used at medium range, not long range. Today, modernized versions, such as the AK-74 and the AKM, have replaced the AK-47 with greater range and accuracy. A U.S. Army report written by the 203d Military Intelligence Battalion stated that the AK-47 has "mild recoil which gives it the capability of delivering effective full automatic fire up to 300 meters."^[1]

This either needs re-writing or permanent removal. I'd support the claim that AK-47s are often claimed to be "notoriously inaccurate" but it needs a source and a solid reason. If anybody wants this to go back into the article, re-write it and source it if possible. RavenStorm 02:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: Guidelines for Inclusion

Based on a few recent discussions, I'm starting a Guidelines for inclusion. I don't know if there is a template or structure we should use to put this at the top of the talk page, so I'll just put it here for now. Shall we simply modify the guidelines directly instead of adding proposed changes inline? I say yes. --JJLatWiki 00:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Guideline #1: A "firearm error in media" is the erroneous portrayal, use, or description of an existant firearm in a non-fiction movie, television program, or print or electronic publication. This guideline does not relieve the editor from following all other Wikipedia guidelines such as notability. Portrayal, use, or description of a firearm in a fictional work that contradicts the real world is not considered an error and therefor should not be included in this list based on that fact alone.

Comment - Initial guideline entry --JJLatWiki 00:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a great basis for all future editions to the article. Long live the rules, lol. RavenStorm 01:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I added the guideline in a table at the top. We'll see how long they last. --JJLatWiki 20:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Handguns and recoil

Anyone who shoots bigs guns would know, recoil is the same one hand or two, that like thinking you will weigh half as much if you take one foot off the scale. The reason you can't fire a sawed off one handed is that the center of gravity is too far forward. You cant hold it striaght, all you can do is point it into the dirt or in the air. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.60.202.157 (talk) 12:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

When we say "you can fire a sawed-off shotgun in one hand," we mean that it is physically possible to do so without any consequences that would heavily discourage a shooter from shooting single-handedly (for example, if sawed-off shotguns broke your wrist when firing with one hand, this would be discouraged). Lack of accuracy or precision are not important... in movies, single-handed shots are usually performed in close-range encounters, last time I checked. RavenStorm 20:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

and Im sayign that would happen with two if it happened with one, the puts out the same amount of recoil. if anything you would hurt two hands instead of one.

Not really. If you knew anything about physics you would realise that force expanded over a larger, heavier area is greatly diminished. You have the resistance of one hand as opposed to having the resistance of two... technically, using your logic, it would not change how many people you used to push over a boulder because it still weighs the same. Please make sure you are educated about the subject before you add anything to Wikipedia. RavenStorm 19:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)