HI version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
54% Positive
Analyzed from 2894 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#gun#fire#dog#don#every#where#movies#guns#shoot#point
Discussion (100 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
Tangentaly related observation, but Reagan may have been the only president to really pay attention to movies and entertainment for inspiration of future events, and possibilities. It was said that he had a similar reaction to War Games, and took it very seriously
In general the sounds of guns are very bad in most movies/tv shows (Heat from 1995 comes closest for me).
Edit: just noticed you mentioned heat already, I need more coffee…
This one is not that surprising in mass media - there's no way the good guys and bad guys are going to take a pause and actually put on PPE before the shoot out.
It seems that "point blank" has come to mean simply, "a shot you can't miss".
I know nothing about arrows except to identify the pointy end.
The volley fire thing is from black powder musket/rifle days. Basically volleys were used so you can actually seen what you are shooting at (aim) and manuever (hard to move while reloading. Easier if everyone reloads at the same time). Most armies still had small groups sharpshooters/snipers running around the field and taking shots freely.
That makes a lot of sense, and is kind of obvious when you think about it. They'd just be wasting energy.
I suppose the way we see it portrayed in film (for some reason it's always LoTR that comes to mind), is for dramatic effect, with scores of arrows flying through the sky at once. But I was always mildly irritated (though without knowing why) by the fact that despite so many arrows flying, the vast majority would miss any target.
Some movies actually provide a plausible-sounding explanation for the volley fire thing. A dude in charge commands everyone to wait until the unsuspecting enemy enters the kill zone. But even in that case, I guess the archers won't wait with their bows drawn.
https://acoup.blog/2025/05/02/collections-why-archers-didnt-...
The French are defending their castle at night from an English siege. They simultaneously exchange volleys of arrows with their tips set on fire. Very cinematic.
Then the dastardly English commander calls for "night arrows". What are those? They're arrows whose tips aren't set on fire.
The French soldiers, knowing there's a pile of archers at their door, and knowing exactly where they are thanks to the attackers all carrying torches, stand waiting for the signal to loose their counter-volley, and are surprised by the "night arrows".
Such nonsense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcUVOlbNb30
Tom's commentary later was that he disagreed with that sentiment. "I disagree with those potential comments. Words change their meaning overtime. In modern English, you can fire an arrow, you can fire a torpedo, we were gonna fire that trebuchet"
However, I'm also aware that I'm kind of a hypocrite because I'm totally fine with current world grammar and punctuation for example.
Just think of it as a translation.
Some people judge fiction way too harshly for inconsequential but inaccurate details which only serve for narrative structure. There are actually tons of authors who get all of these details right, but you almost never read their books because if they can get them published at all, nobody reads them, because they absolutely suck. An author that gets these details right and is actually a good storyteller is extremely rare. It’s basically a list consisting of Tom Clancy and John Le Carre.
It’s just a pet peeve. At some point you have to let it go, or you’ll end up wasting your time writing blog posts begging authors (who largely don’t care) to talk to you so they won’t get inconsequential details wrong.
And then the author with his own specialty started writing about my field ... oh so badly.
So, knowledge of weapons doesn't translate in knowledge of writing (or vice versa). My only criteria any longer is just don't say "clip" unless your character has scored himself a Mauser C96 or similar and we're good.
The tough thing is, once you get "above average" in terms of accuracy, those of us who like to be a little more pedantic will grade on a curve!
Big props to the John Wick franchise for making reloading* a first-class part of their gun-fu choreography.
* ...and badass one-handed press checks that no-one should ever do IRL.
Beginning and then almost immediately dropping niche hobbies (eg flight simulators, poker, guns in the linked post) is transformed from something a spouse or partner might see as an undesirable and potentially annoying personality trait, into: "this is research, darling, it's my job", which is probably significantly more annoying.
It is easy to make mistakes with a verb one might not think to question like "cocked". Of course, ideally, you'd question every word used, so that the % of readers who understand its full associated meaning don't have their immersion in a story suddenly & painfully torn away.
To be less glib, I find that when speaking about a topic from a character's perspective - in dialogue or narration - a relatively important part of empathising with their point-of-view is understanding the physical and linguistic structure of their world. Sometimes I find there's no way to do this without putting hundreds of hours into understanding the tools they would use or the way they would live. Write what you know!
* People pumping shotguns after every round, or unnecessarily cycling the bolt after every round
* Wrong action type for the gun
* Wrong shotgun ammo for the context
* Wrong safety type for the gun (most long guns have safeties, but they are operated in a variety of ways)
* Magazine vs clip vs chamber vs tube
* Shotgun impacts launching people across rooms, or unrealistic recoil (both too high and too low) for the weapon type
There are also instances when semi-auto pistols might need to be cycled after every round.
Have you seen that in a film? Is it actually a thing, can you ignore it?
I assume a lot of writers get their misinformation from Hollywood sound effects and the countless other gun related liberties.
Like the terminator asking for a phased plasma rifle in a 40W range. Everyone knows those weren't available until 1997.
But I think sometimes we're more justified than the gun nuts. Take for example the movie series favorite "we'll track him through his GPS".
Sure, sometimes a bullet impact throwing someone off a cliff is plot-relevant, but I couldn't name a single example. On the other hand, I can think of several examples where (supposedly) state-of-the-art encryption is cracked digit by digit, or where a radio receiver is tracked from a distance where the receiving pattern would be orders of magnitude below the noise floor (most often from orbital satellites), or where a device is remotely "hacked" that is not even plausibly connected to a network (less common, now that everything is IoT, although it's really prevalent in works set in the late 90s / early 00s).
If every movie was as close to reality as possible they wouldn’t be classified as entertainment.
Loose aggressive dog is not a human. It is dangerous vermin that can kill you! You are absolutely allowed to play it safe, defend yourself, and shoot it (the same way you would kill mosquito).
"It just wants to play" is not an argument, you are not a "toy" for some strange dog. It was "reactive" is also not an argument, you have no obligation to suffer its "reaction" to the full end.
Dog owners will say they have a right to mangle child, for petting their dog (it was self defense). They will also insist dogs are safe around the children, two sentences latter. Do not listen to them!
Intimate partner gun violence alone leads to about 700 women being killed every year.
So by your logic, if you’re a woman and your partner has a gun, and is walking towards you and you can’t clearly tell that they don’t have a gun on them, “they just want to give you a kiss before leaving home” isn’t an argument. They’re vermin that can kill you and you’re absolutely allowed to play it safe, defend yourself and shoot them.
But you are forgetting one major thing: dogs are not people!
People not used to dogs often seem to think it is, and I'd hate for people to start shooting dogs just because they bark. Dogs bark, it's what they do.
Like we are suppose to guess that tail wagging at 1.5hz with 10 degree amplitude is safe (but only if ears are not raised)? Or that running away is bad?
It is just a trap to blame victim for "provoking" an attack. Dog should be secured and on leash, that is what responsible dog owners do!
Don’t pet strange dogs. Don’t let your children pet strange dogs. Don’t mess with animals you don’t know unless you’re willing to risk being bitten or worse. Simple as that.
Can I run away? Or is that me "messing" with strange animal and initiating a conflict?
Can I walk on "their teritory" (also known as public street or park)? Or is there some broken rule here?
What if dog is really really horny, and wants small dog I am carrying?
> willing to risk being bitten or worse
I am not willing to risk that. I will not allow that! Simple as that!