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

Greentext

6239 readers
835 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
[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 68 points 1 month 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.

[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 61 points 1 month 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.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month 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.

[–] Frozengyro@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] sneezycat@sopuli.xyz 26 points 1 month 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.

[–] OrteilGenou@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] feannag@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

But I'll see what I can do.

[–] Khanzarate@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month 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.

[–] tburkhol@lemmy.world -3 points 1 month 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.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 25 points 1 month 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.