That used to be the case for me maybe 40 years ago. Today, cars all look the same to me, and I rarely can identify the manufacturer, let alone the model.
I can’t tell them apart from ANY angle!
I can see that different cars have distinctly different shapes. But I have no idea about how this shape = this make and model.
Not caliber, or model
Sure a Glock is easy, but is it a 17, 19, 43, 45, 42, 26, 21, 44, 20? While it is holstered. From a distance.
There are a number of copies of guns. Can you identify which brand a holstered 1911 copy is? Or even if it is a .22 plinker copy?
When cops on TV shows do that, they are aided by the writers.
Like cops (or MEs) that look at a bullet wound and say “9mm”. Sure it isn’t a .38? A .357? Or a 10mm?
Yeah, you can ID a handgun- sometimes- without a close examination. A glock 17 is considerable different than a 1911. But in one L&O scene the Detective claimed that not only could he ID the gun (which was being tossed in the bay) but also the caliber- Impossible.
It is also impossible to ID the caliber on a medium sized bullet hole- .38 special, 357 magnum, 9mm, and .380 (to name the more common calibers) all have nearly identical bullet diameter. Yes, one can often tell a .22 hole vs a .45 hole, sure.
Right.
Exactly. “Appears to be about a 9MM wound” is not bad.
I know very little about guns, and am perfectly content to treat them as plot devices in a work of fiction. A character has exactly as much knowledge as the writers want them to have, realistic or not.
If a gun is fired with the slide back (or whatever it is people on this board or elsewhere love to harp on), I couldn’t care less. Person has gun => person shoots gun => get on with the story.
Yeah, my attitude completely.
I know very little about guns and feel the same, but I can understand why some gun experts are annoyed by such faults. I’m an IT guy, and most movies and series get how computers work and people work with computers totally wrong, sometimes hilariously so. The common bloke won’t notice, but I cringe every time.
And it’s SO fun watching TV with people who can point out every little mistake (I have GOT to get some less-than-genius friends).
I’ve recommended The Pitt to people with the line “You know Jazzy. Well, this is the only medical show that she doesn’t snort at, with ‘Yeah, right, there’s no way they’d give the patient that. And that equipment in the background? At least twenty years out of date! Are they trying to kill people?’”
With the IT stuff (and I’m sure with gun stuff, if I knew more about it), I completely don’t mind a bit of simplification or shorthand when being completely realistic would waste time or get in the way. However, so often something is done wrong when it could just as easily have been done right.
The Pitt is a great example of a show doing it right. They frequently have lines where they are calling out the drugs to give to a patient. They could just do “give him medical babble of medical babble” and many people would be fine with it. The line has to be something, so instead they consult with an expert to fill in the right dose and medication for the situation. Now, a throw away line makes every nurse, doctor, and pharmacist feel seen.
That’s exactly right. It’s just lazy. In years past you might have needed to hire a consultant. Now most of the mistakes can be cleared up with google. I hate lazy writing. Except when I don’t. I can be like that sometimes.
Of course you couldn’t. It’s impossible.
Or cars, they get cars wrong and car enthusiasts are bothered. Or many other things. Now sure, tiny things only an expert should notice is one thing- but huge errors that anyone who has ever shot a gun are quite another.
For me it isn’t so much the error, it’s that the people responsible for said error never bother to do 5 minutes of checking their facts. Some things can be over-looked as Rule of Cool, but there is a limit.
Good points, I concur. I mean in a police show, they should have a technical advisor- a retired cop or someone. Such as for Blue Bloods they had James Nuciforo a former Detective in the City of New York Police Department. Etc.
Yes, but “cocking the gun after using it as a threat” loses me.
One of the Simpsons writers pointed out that guns in cartoons somehow become scarier the more you cock them.
MAFIA DON: Do for me my favorite trick… where you ride the little bike through the loop, and I will let you live.
HOMER But I’ve never been able to do that- [don cocks gun] How about if I just squirt you in the face with my boutonniere? [don cocks gun again] Okay.
Depending on the model of pistol, some have hammers that can be set first to a half-cock and then a full cock position; so twice is possible.
Just saw one we’ve all seen a kajillion times in movies and TV (also video games): sneaking around by crawling through ventilation ducts. Has this ever really been done in the history of the world? Do any commercial buildings even have ventilation ducts large enough for an adult human to crawl through? Such a lazy trope.
I have seen ducts large enough for someone to crawl through. But they are still made of sheet metal. Your weight would cause the metal to flex, It would make a loud noise, and the noise would echo throughout the air conditioning system.. Back in the days of yore, theater companies would rattle a sheet of metal to simulate the sound of thunder.
Mythbusters did this on one episode. Adam Savage’s conclusion: “We are being infiltrated by Thor, the God of Thunder!”