The gunfighter's dilemma

Apparently, it's incorrect that the winning strategy is to move second - while the drawing motion take ~20ms less when reacting, it takes ~200ms to react in the first place, leaving you quite dead. See <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2010/02/why_does_the_gunslinger_who_draws_first_always_get_shot.php" rel="nofollow">http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2010/02/why_does_th...</a><p>Did the BBC misinterpret the data, or did the scienceblogs article make a mistake?

You can't skip the story about Niels Bohr at the bottom.

There are existing studies which show that people react faster when startled than when not. There's a nifty little online test to check your own response times: <a href="http://www.mathsisfun.com/games/reaction-time.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.mathsisfun.com/games/reaction-time.html</a><p>As far as I know this is the first test to show that startle response extends beyond reaction time, it's an interesting piece of data. It's worth noting that it's possible to force yourself into a state of mind similar to being startled, which may very well eliminate the advantage to "shooting" second.

I could see this being the case, but it's got to be very narrow timing, and it probably only applies for the same type of action. A friend and I used to do a drill with his Glock 9mm. (After ensuring the gun was unloaded) one of us would point the pistol right at the other's head. The pointee would initiate action by grabbing the gun and the pointer would try to pull the trigger. It was impossible to pull the trigger in time, action was always faster than reaction in this case. We did it many times over, both of us with the gun. Semi-automatic handguns will not fire when you keep the slide from moving, which is what happens when you grab the whole barrel like this, though I don't think I'd be willing to try the maneuver in real life.

&#62;In a series of mock gunfights with colleagues Bohr always drew second and always won.<p>I'm hoping the author of this article just didn't want to elaborate, but Bohr never thought it could've just been that he was faster at drawing than his opponents? Switching it so he was the first to draw some of the time would have been better design.

So optimally you want to be startled into action by something other than your opponent drawing. Then you get the speed advantage &#38; a head start...<p>Wonder if anyones done any research on training this for martial arts.

So much for first-mover advantage.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TANC4VI8vF4#t=1m18s" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TANC4VI8vF4#t=1m18s</a> - draws and shoots and returns gun to holster in 0.02s.<p>I don't feel lucky!

<i>Niels Bohr, liked to take time off from figuring out the structure of the universe by watching westerns.<p>Bohr noticed that the man who drew first invariably got shot, and speculated that the intentional act of drawing and shooting was slower to execute than the action in response.</i><p>Haha, really? So he formed a hypothesis based on movies? I'm fairly sure its just poorly written in the article but if it is not thats just silly.<p>Edit: Formatting

It would also depend on the first-mover not being adequately trained/experienced. The goal of training, and the effect of extensive experience, is to automatize the action, so that it will occur without conscious intermediation.

Then, since Solo shot first, he was a fine duelist. This reconciles the argument: he can be a good guy AND shoot first. Solo did not _intend_ to shoot first, but while reposting his instincts made him the fastest.