I have almost no experience with guns, but I remember hearing about the “blank” tradition back when Gary Gilmore was executed.
And I remember a TV reporter talking to one of the men who was on the firing squad. The reporter asked him about the blank, and the shooter said, “I fired a real bullet. I can tell the difference.”
Again, not knowing much about guns, I don’t know first-hand if an experienced shooter can tell the difference between a loaded gun and one loaded with blanks. But this shooter was certain he COULD tell the difference. I’m guessing MOST experienced shooters believe they can tell the difference. Which means that, IF the object is to let each shooter believe he didn’t fire the fatal shot, it’s NOT working.
I disagree. There’s no guarantee that a single shooter would fire the perfect shot (they aim for the heart, don’t they?), and there are plenty of instances of people surviving a single gunshot wound, even from close distances.
Yea, and you not only want the shot to be fatal, but you want it to be fatal fairly quickly. Having five bullets aimed at the heart from twenty feet and your likely to get a few directly in the heart/aorta and have the target bleed out pretty quickly. One bullet might leave the person flopping around on the ground for thirty minutes, raising awkward questions about whether you should try and patch him up or not.
Even with five shooters, it seems pretty crude (and presumably, a lot messier then the alternatives, I’d hate to be the Janitor). Not to mention extra work for the mortician. Not even getting into Constitutional concerns, its pretty easy to see why its being phased out.
All the articles I’ve read suggest that it’s actually much quicker and obviously more efficient - just messier. That’s the thing, the most humane ways to kill a person or animal are often the most unsettling for bystanders. The guillotine really was a pretty damned good method - just has a bit of an image problem.
The way I see it, that particular shooter was OK with firing a live round. The blank is to help people who have a problem with the killing. If you have one that is bothered by it, his mind could very well deny ‘fact’ and happily perceive that he fired a blank. In fact, I think this makes the mechanism even better. You have people who are certain they can tell the difference, their minds can play a coping trick on them making them believe they fired a blank when they didn’t. The problem comes from if they decide to compare notes, which they probably shouldn’t do.
My best friend and her husband are in town this weekend, and we are going to the range tomorrow to shoot, among other things. If we can get out hands on some blanks, we’re going to check our ability to distinguish blanks from live rounds. The test isn’t perfect, as we’ll be using handguns, but I thought I’d bring it up.
I’ve fired blanks in an AR-15 (5.56 mm), FN-FAL (7.62 mm), and a Beretta 92FS (9 mm). The AR-15 had a ‘Hollywood-style’ blank firing adaptor. The FN had an open barrel. We modified the Beretta so that it would cycle with blank ammunition. In the case of the rifles there was zero felt recoil. The Beretta had something to push against (required to cycle the action), but the recoil was barely felt. If you’re using blanks at the range, Skald, I expect you will not feel any recoil.
With a dummy bullet, the mass has to be the same as a lead one, otherwise the recoil will be different. With a blank, there’s nothing ‘pushing back’. With a modified gun, like the Beretta, you need a hole small enough to provide the back pressure to move the slide, but large enough so that nothing ‘unfortunate’ happens.
Good god, the uncertainty would haunt me forever if I were ever on a firing squad. Better to just load all the guns and know for sure that you did in fact shoot the prisoner. And it’s not like they would even know which bullets delivered fatal hits after all. I’d think it would be better to know for certain and have some closure, than to go on second-guessing yourself.
I hope this doesn’t move this discussion too close to GD, but isn’t the inclusion of a blank, and its rationale, an admission that the process by definition is inhumane?
Good question, but I don’t necessarily think so. As a trivial example, someone may think it’s OK to humanely slaughter animals for food, but they’d rather not be the one to do it. Multiply that about a google for human execution (although, for other reasons, I personally am leaning toward wanting to abolish the death penalty).
I am not an experienced shooter, I have only fired a a gun with real ammo maybe twice and one loaded with blanks 2 or 3 times.
But as I recall, you’d have to be really stupid or brain dead not to be able to tell the difference, a gun loaded with blanks has absolutely no recoil.
The blank does provide plausible deniability if an individual shooter wants to claim it when speaking to another person, whether or not he actually knows he fired a blank or a real round.
But the presence of the blank in one rifle which is *unknown to all the shooters in advance *allows each shooter to believe that when he fires he may be the one drawing the blank. This may make it easier for the shooter to bring himself to the point at which he can actually aim for the target and pull that trigger on command. Right up until the shot is actually fired, he can tell himself “It isn’t going to be me that kills him”.
ETA- Sorry SoulFrost, I don’t know how I missed your post before!
