this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2025
370 points (97.7% liked)

Greentext

5985 readers
1750 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 67 points 3 days ago (5 children)

Fire quicker than your opponent is the essence of the duel. There's no way to "fire early" because they are watching for you to reach for your gun.

Although I always found the genre contrived. If they were an actual threat, you'd shoot them in their sleep.

[–] [email protected] 59 points 3 days ago

You’re entirely correct. Showdowns are a trope of westerns, anyway. If I remember correctly, there’s only historical evidence of one in the old west.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 days ago (1 children)

There’s no way to “fire early” because they are watching for you to reach for your gun.

The 'conventional' wisdom is to wait for the other duelist to reach for their gun because reflex is faster than conscious action.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Well it's not. Not even close. Action beats reaction every time.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Still, while participants moved faster when reacting than initiating, reactors only rarely beat initiators. The extra milliseconds it took volunteers to respond to the movements of their opponents greatly offset any benefit the reactive advantage granted.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago

But I'll see what I can do.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago

Maybe the poster thought there was a countdown. Not this one though, so you're absolutely right.

It works better when both gunners care about innocents. Imagine the ranger couldn't find hits hideout, a big enough place it wasn't easy, and Texas red didn't wanna shoot up the place he was living.

The ranger might get a message saying a time and place, so they can meet without causing a bunch of damage or risking innocents.

Of course, the moustache-twirling sort of villains wouldn't work with that at all. Just can't trust them. But there's plenty of room for this to make sense sometimes.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

These were the "good old days" when fighting had rules. National armies would literally line up facing each other in uniforms with literal X-marks-the-spot targets.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 3 days ago

National armies would literally line up facing each other in uniforms with literal X-marks-the-spot targets.

The reason for armies meeting up like that, and in bright colors, is to avoid friendly fire, not because of honor or anything like that. When you have a bunch of peasants dragged from their homes and shove a musket in their hands, anything more complex than "Holy shit, holy fucking shit, do NOT shoot or stab the guys in BRIGHT RED, only those in BRIGHT BLUE" tends to get lost in the chaos of battle.