[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caltech%E2%80%93MIT_rivalry#20... [1] (which is, admittedly, pretty small)

Intrigued, I got some info from wikihow.

> If you are a fast runner or have bad knees, run in a straight line away from the attacker towards cover. The faster you can get away, the fewer shots they will be able to fire.

>If you are a slower runner and do not have knee trouble, a zig-zag run may be a better option. You may still be hit in this case, but the chances of being hit in a vital area may be reduced.

It’s so, so hard for any amateur to hit a target that is moving radially in a polar coordinate system centered on them, at all. I’d bet your average shooter who makes the news can’t put 7/10 shots in a stationary silhouette at 10yd. It’s harder than you’d think.

Fictional, but based on a real event.

Yeah. Researchers would have liked to interview them, but all the people who zig-zagged in favor of running as fast as they could are dead.

Isn't that the easiest possible way because they remain on a constant bearing?

“Great question, did you know if you zig and zag you become impervious to bullet :)”

Still snarky, but there is a point.

I suppose I can imagine that GP said that you can feel the difference between levels of brain damage incurred (they did not), but even if that were the case then why would you encourage someone to expose themselves to artillery if you thought the damage was more than zero?

“The damage from both is different but also zero if you zig zag check mate 8-)”

There are several orders of magnitude difference between a 9mm handgun and a small artillery round. The difference is in terms of concussive force.

If you shoot a handgun with earplugs in, you hear a pop that sounds kind of like dropping a small ball bearing on a wood floor. You feel a shock in your wrists and a bit in your elbows, like high-fiving someone.

Now, you stand a few yards from artillery - and I’m talking Korean war artillery, not modern stuff. Also not talking about reenactment stuff; they usually just put a bit of black powder in there. I’m talking about small tow-behind artillery that you’d see at the Big Sandy Shoot (Google it).

You _feel_ the sound before you hear it. You’ll look for some shooting muffs to put on _over_ your earplugs. The concussive force comes through the ground, through the air, moves through your head and stimulates your eardrums from the backside. You feel your guts vibrate a bit. It feels like the ground moved under you, like you’re landing after jumping in the air.

And _that_ is an order of magnitude or so below what we’re talking about with SEALs here - those guys are placing explosive with a sticky backing on doors, and torching it off from not very far away. There’s stories from them of not being able to get physically “far enough” from a charge, and having to detonate it anyway because you’re in a freaking war zone. When a SEAL says “oh, this is going to fucking suck” before pushing a button, you know it’s real.

> Could this problem also be affecting civilian gun enthusiasts?

Since you are clear that you do not think that civilian gun enthusiasts could be affected because they

> shoot a handgun with earplugs in

I thank you for your service for sharing your advice on how to become invulnerable to gun fire. Without that I might have doubted your expertise on this issue of brain damage from concussive force

Aside from the cavalier “I know something you don’t” there was nothing of any value posted.

Yeah, there's a very big difference. I mean a BIG DIFFERENCE

I hope they never invent a gun that fires more than once per trigger pull, then you would be able to just sweep it around in the general direction of Invincible Mr. Zig

Idk if i would trust my life with that. What if they just spray a bunch of bullets in the general direction I am? Also what is the minimum distance where this tactic becomes effective? I just can’t imagine that zigzagging helps that much when you are 2 meters away from the shooter. And then there is the question of what is the typical distance between the shooter and the victim in most gun violence scenarios. Would not be surprised if that is inside the “zigzag helps you” distance.

Besides… how would going to a range and shooting guns help one learn this information? It feels what you really would need is someone practicing running away from someone with murderous intent to get an intuitive understanding of what you are claiming. And of course people are reluctant to practice that.

From what I understand, real soldiers generally don't spray bullets like you see in movies or video games unless they are in a defensive machine gun nest or on some sort of vehicle. Ammo is an extremely finite and precious resource on the battlefield. You can't carry much with you, and you don't necessarily know when you can resupply, so every shot has to count. If you spray bullets you'll be out within seconds and then you're on a battlefield unarmed. Not good.

> And then there is the question of what is the typical distance between the shooter and the victim in most gun violence scenarios.

In a war? Can be quite high.

> how would going to a range and shooting guns help one learn this information?

Ranges have moving targets, you try to hit them and observe that it's hard.

If you ever saw any combat video, soldiers often fire a LOT, experienced or not (experienced just tend to hit more often). Maybe not a full auto, but nobody thinks in '1 bullet per enemy' mentality, self-preservation makes you overdo it, and they train you to not save on ammo unless you are cut off from supplies.

> U.S. forces have expended at least 250,000 small-caliber bullets for every insurgent killed in the present wars

Think about that number for a second. Technically, 1000 fully equipped NATO soldiers fire all their carried ammo per 1 single dead enemy. Life ain't Call of Duty.

>U.S. forces have expended at least 250,000 small-caliber bullets for every insurgent killed in the present wars

Right, but it is that high because of the machine gun nests and vehicles.