A cool guide to Myths and Misinformation created by Movies
A cool guide to Myths and Misinformation created by Movies
Some of these are wrong.
Tracing a call is instant. It took longer back in the days when there were physical switches, but that's been a long, long time ago.
Silencers can make a gun nearly as quiet as the movies, in limited cases. Something like a subsonic .22 will be about as lout as a golf clap. A 5.56x45mm rifle will be hearing-safe, but only barely; it's still going to be very loud, and will def. sound like a rifle.
You can shoot some locks off. You're not shooting through the shackle, you're disrupting the locking mechanism that keeps the shackle closed. It's still unsafe; you're going to have ricochet and spall going everywhere.
Tracing a call is instant. It took longer back in the days when there were physical switches, but that's been a long, long time ago.
Yup. Back in the days of analog phone exchanges, you literally had to send a guy to check electrical connections between lines. Which is why it took time and which is why they encouraged the people to keep on the line as long as possible.
Digital exchanges added call tracing as a design requirement. Everything gets logged. Even if you spoofed or blocked your number, the phone company knows what you did. They are the Phone Company.
It gets more complicated if you're using VOIP, and a logless/anonymous VPN. But yeah, tracing calls is pretty simple for the most part. Now that cops are aware of it, people tend to get busted for SWATting these days.
It's gonna depend on the lock, too. Most locks most people buy are gonna have shit build quality. Some literally so bad that you could just shoot straight through it and not just disrupting the locking mechanism (in the way that some quite a bit stronger locks can be disrupted with, for example, a rubber mallet) but literally destroying it. Others (a minority) might be so strong that a typical gun has no effect at all and the infographic actually gets it right.
To add to this a bit more:
Generally, if you want to shoot a lock (or door frame hinges) off, you use a shotgun with special breaching rounds.
Various forms of these have been and still are used by various Militaries, but more often SWAT or equivalent type units.
The general video gamey / movie portrayal of how this works is usually wildly exaggerated / inaccurate though, usually with pistols at moderate ranges.
Conceivably you might also be able take a door lock/hinges apart with an anti materiel rifle, but this would be wildly impractical.
I think the idea of just shooting the lock off came about from the idea that our character had nothing else available. Like what average street criminal goes about with breaching rounds? And in the movies its often in a pinch. Breaching rounds are used by military and swat because they are equiped and prepared for that possibility, just like a professional theif is equiped with lock picking tools instead of a glock (or at least their glock isn't used on the locks).
If hinges are on the outside, in most cases you can just pull the pins out with pliers. Or a small hammer and a screwdriver to act as a drive punch. That's why most exterior doors swing in (hinges on the inside) rather than out.
My favorite cliche under that umbrella is people shooting chains to cause something to fall. Chains are strong as all get out, round, and they're hanging. Shooting a big heavy chain might just clean some corporation off.
Pretty sure chloroform is wrong too.
Chem teacher had some and one kid stupidly took a whiff. She dropped like a sack of potatoes. She woke up in a few seconds but yeah - that shit was instant.
I guess it might take 5 minutes to get enough to be out for a few hours.
Here's what I can find that gives a better answer. Above 100ppm, you'll rapidly start feeling dizzy. But chloroform is also highly volatile, so you would need to have a rag soaked in chloroform just before attacking someone, rather than lying in wait for a few minutes to a few hours. Plus, if you get that concentration too high, you can accidentally kill someone.
So if you'd been hiding in someone's car for 10 minutes, that rag might have lost enough efficacy that it would take a few minutes. Alternatively, if the person in the backseat doused the rag just before attacking the driver, it might be nearly instant.
Supersonic bullet still makes a crack. When you fire subsonic you can get just the sound of the metal bits hitting each other. Whoever is interested look up what an MP5S with subsonic ammo in a firing range sounds like (the S is important in this search)
It's still louder than just the bolt cycling; you're hearing the gas escaping at high speed, but subsonic ammunition through a silencer is definitely significantly quieter than supersonic ammunition. One of the very, very few positive things about .45 AARP is that it's always subsonic, so it's easy to get it very quiet, as long as you have the slide locked so that it doesn't cycle. (IIRC Knights Armament Corp made a .45 for SOF that had a locking slide.) Videos aren't great for hearing what a silenced firearm really sounds like due to the way that most microphones compress sound; they end up sounding very different IRL.
I've been at the range when some other people were testing out a night-fighter rig with .300 AAC and a silencer; it sounded like they were shooting a .22.
I'd love to get a silencer for my Ruger Mk. IV, because that's one that will get very, very quiet with subsonic ammunition. I also want to get a silencer for my AR-15, mostly because that sharply reduces the amount of smoke you have to deal with at night matches.
Shooting two guns at the same time does in fact look cool. That's not a myth. Hitting two targets with two guns at the same time is really hard though.
Also, in most media I've seen, people with two guns still primarily shoot at single targets
This one seems the least believable to me, but I admit I have almost no experience shooting guns. Maybe you won't be super accurate, but it would work if you were going for suppressing fire against multiple bad guys while trying to get to cover or something.
Also it would definitely work if you're The One fighting in a simulated reality.
In the same scene, Neo dodges bullets after they've left the barrel. He is not subject to human rules.
I wonder if someone practiced exotropia and multi-focal tracking (or rapid mono-focal switching) if then dual vector shooting could technically be learned.
Regardless if anyone attempts this, please post a video of your face while you do it. For science.
Defibrillator:
Weeeell, not exactly. A defibrillator is essential to restarting a heart under specific conditions, and greatly improves the odds of survival to discharge. If your patient is already wired up and you see them go into a shockable rhythm, you can go ahead and shock them immediately. Otherwise, you're going to need to do some CPR to prime the heart before you deliver the shock. At that, it's worth noting that not all rhythms are considered shockable (that is, experience a clinical benefit from being shocked), and asystole (flatline) is not among them. Source: am paramedic.
The lock: depends. Notice they said a small bullet. A 12 gauge slug can change a lot of facts about a lock in a hurry. I can't say it would blow a lock clean out, I think the mythbusters tried it with mixed results, but it's sure as shit take care of a padlock.
Aiming at two targets: more of a shitty technicality, but if you're using a shot load in a shotgun, it's perfectly viable to aim at multiple targets (in a target dense environment) at once. Your aim just has to be generally correct.
Tracing a call: bullshit, especially with cell phones. Modern dispatching centers can generally triangulate a 911 caller's position (if they're in range of multiple towers) in under a few minutes, it's a thing. If 911 can do it, you just know the feds can. Also, phone companies and phones keep records of what device pinged what tower and when, people have been convicted off of that data.
I would like to add that a suppressor can render certain specialized firearms nearly silent if they are used in conjunction with subsonic ammunition. A suppressor can deaden the sound of the initial explosion, but a supersonic bullet will continue to create a sonic boom as it flies through the air. A subsonic round doesn't create a sonic boom and as a result nearly all of the sound of firing comes from the initial explosion. If that explosion is well sealed and is funneled through the right supressor, nearly silent operation can be achieved. A good example of this is the Welrod used during World War Two, which was quiter than an airsoft gun and was only really audible at point blank range.
TLDR, how quiet a gun gets with a suppressor is determined by the ammunition, the type of firearm, and type of suppressor. Suppressed gunfire can range from as loud or louder than a nail gun to as quiet as a sneeze.
Worth noting that while a nail gun is pretty loud (if you've ever been around them without hearing protection), it's still nothing on being near an unsuppressed gunshot. If you've never been up close when even a pistol is shot, it's much louder then you're imagining, and louder still than you've just adjusted your imagination to. Rifles are louder again.
It's worth noting that nearly none of the people you see testing suppressors online use a pistol with a slide that is locked so it doesn't cycle, shooting through a suppressor that has the right type of "lube" applied, with rubber wipes at the very end to let the bullet through then reseal the suppressor for a few shots, before they're completely shot out.
You don't get a lot of silent shots, and you've got to rack the slide yourself for each of them, but they do get quite a bit quieter than the suppressor mythbusters think they do, running their dry, open suppressors in semi auto.
Also, phone companies and phones keep records of what device pinged what tower and when, people have been convicted off of that data.
To me this is why that point is especially misleading, the movie trope is that as long as you hang up the phone soon enough they can't find you, but that's obviously not how it works at all.
It is how it used to work back when these tropes came about.
Here’s an interesting video on the topic
My issue with the two guns thing is that the “myth” they present is that it looks cool. Which is subjective, and for many people it does look cool. You’re unlikely to hit with any accuracy, but you’ll look cool missing.
Dude I was about to say, there's no way they don't have a quicker way to track calls. They just wouldn't tell us for obvious reasons.
The lock: There are rounds made specifically for this https://clucas.com/ammunition/hatton-round/
Aiming at two targets: Only if you're Jerry Miculek ...
I'll say for your comment on slugs, we used 10 gauge Magnum slugs and had no issue on reinforced doors or padlocks. A bit scary, but fun and informative.
A defibrillator is for a heart that is in fibrillation, which is a jumbled, ineffective vibration, NOT a flat line.
Not sure if you're trying to disagree with me, but yeah, I said that asystole isn't among the shockable rhythms.
I'm here to learn how many of these truths are actually just myths of their own!
A stopped heart can actually be started with bullets fired from two guns with silencers.
That's only true if you're both skydiving.
They used a picture of a guy who canonically has techno-jesus powers for the two guns example. This is like showing a picture of Superman and saying "Actually, people can't leap tall buildings in a single bound"
They also claim that the myth is "it looks cool".
That's not a myth - it does look cool. It just so happens to be horrible inaccurate as well. (Without powers)
I want to add to #1
It's right, there has to be an electric activity for an electrical shock (a defibrillator) to work. But please do continue CPR with a flatline. It's harder, but there is a chance that emergency response staff can restart the heart with the right medication, but only if you didn't pause the circulation.
Sometimes you see in movies how someone is restarting the heart with a hit to the chest. Dont try this. Chances are you cause more damage than good. It is is a real maneuver called Precordial thump, but is only effective when you see the arrhythmia on the monitor and do it the very second of it happening. Outside of an ICU or monitored environment its not useful and can be quite harmful.
If a movie wants to be extra dramatic, there is the is the big ass adrenalin syringe right into the heart. Pulp fiction is one example. This is something that makes sense, when you watch a movie set in the 1950's or so. But it's not a practice anymore, because it causes more damage than do good. It's also nothing a normal person could do at home, because chances are nearly zero for you to hit the right spot. The heart is a fragile thing, you can't just stab it randomly.
Source: nurse am I.
Precordial thumps getting dropped from the EMS scope made me sad (paramedic here). They have a lot of utility, especially for us because we're pretty much on top of the patient the whole ride, so we're generally going to notice when they code. The problem is that it's a lack of training. Most people weren't even asked to practice the technique, you just read about it and got a slap on the ass on the way out the door. I mean, can you imagine teaching CPR or intubation that way? It'd be a fucking disaster. Little wonder people were doing it wrong and causing harm.
Imo, too often the medical field's answer to "people are doing this wrong" is "fuck it, we're taking it away", when it should be "do more (effective) training".
For some reason it never occurred to me that chest compressions were actually to help pump blood. I guess I assumed it was just some magic that might start a heart up again.
The compressions are essential to make sure there is blood and therefore oxygen getting to the brain. Without it the brain is dead after a few minutes. Even if the heart restarts then, the patient is brain damaged.
I'm glad you know now. Maybe you'll save someone's life with that knowledge now.
What a dumb, inconsistent list.
Yup. One that got me was the one about shooting two guns.
"Aiming at two targets is hardly possible".... It's absolutely possible. You can aim at two things all day long. If you're firing two guns at two targets, having to aim at them isn't really the issue.
The issue is that any aim you have one either target is going to suck. Combined with the difficulty of simply holding a several pound hunk of metal at arm's length, and having it violently shake around every time a round is discharged because you don't have adequate control over it to keep it from shaking every which way.
No sir. Aiming is not the problem. Actually hitting the target is the problem.
Asteroids in a belt have a large distance between them, but I'd imagine rubble from a planet or moon recently destroyed by the empire would probably be grouped a lot more tightly.
Some grenades can have their pins pulled with teeth, but it's a dumb idea.
Presumably would actually just reform back into a planet since if you blow up a planet the mass is still there, it has just being fractured. If you leave it a couple of years it'll form back into a planet again.
This is probably what happened with the ice moon of Europa.
Some fire extinguishers have pins that can be pulled with your teeth, some don't. Doesn't make it a "myth"...
The drowning one doesn't only apply to drowning but a lot of medical emergencies. People in need are often embarrassed to ask for help. Some are to busy panicking so they cometely freeze up. If someone acts odd just ask if they are alright.
True, but it especially applies to drowning because they are under the water, unable to get air to make any noise.
people can easily shatter padlock shackles with ramsets, which are basically little blank round gunpowder powered hammers. not sure if a gun would, but sure seems like it.
also, the asteroid one is probably quite true, but saturns ring are between 10m and 1 km in thickness, so there are exceptions.
Saturn's rings aren't an asteroid belt. Just replace the word "asteroid belt" with "ring system" in Star Wars and it make sense again.
The Slowmo Guys released a video on YouTube recently where they shot a pistol at a padlock not really expecting it to break, but it did, haha! I think it took a few rounds though.
Mythbusters were able to easily break all but the largest padlocks with a hammer so you could probably pistol whip a lot of them too.
Like half of these are TV shows. House MD, X Files, Baywatch just at a glance.
And imagine trying to suggest Baywatch isn't the number one source for first aid/resuscitation information. Smh.
The drowning thing is spot on. Been there, done that, and I can swim just fine. Only way I'm alive is by chilling out, getting my lips above water and sipping air. Once I had enough to float, I floated.
Watch some videos of people going down. They exhibit very similar behaviors. If you're a parent, this is required watching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1mVcSUttX4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8G9Gam8jf8
Plenty more out there, but what is described is exactly how I went down. And I was 20-yards from a certified life guard in an old cow pond.
Years ago I was take away by the sea and couldn't swim back. I remembered that people usually panicked and drawn for exhausting so I stopped swimming and just move my arms and scream for help. When I saw people standing up I stopped screaming and just moved my arms. Then a surfer rushed up with the board and help me go back to the beach.
- Shooting two guns at the same time looks cool.
- Aiming at two targets at the same time is hardly possible.
These are not in any way mutually exclusive and in fact are both true.
Forensic scientist Sue Black says that there's no such thing as "forensic" science. It's just science, the "forensic" part just means the science is being brought into the courtroom. People (from watching movies/TV) think the science conducted in such contexts is somehow different or more complex than that done in other contexts. It's all the same processes and skills and expertise.