Talk:Pistol-whipping

Deadliest warrior as a source

Regardless of whether pistol whipping can actually fracture a human skull (it most likely can under some circumstances), I think 'Deadliest Warrior', a tv show infamous for its bad history, bad physics, and terrible conclusions about warfare and weapons, should probably not be used as a source. At least not as if it is a remotely reputable source.LuxArdens (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Torture?

I've never heard of pistol-whipping being used for torture. Aren't rubber truncheons more common, as they leave less marking and aren't as likely to break bones? It seems to me you'd have to either be a very good pistol-whipper or use a very light force to avoid killing someone with even two or three pistol-whips to the head. A pistol is a very dangerous blunt instrument. Wouldn't this be better categorized under violence than torture? Can anyone cite the usage of pistol-whipping for torture? -Kasreyn 05:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like torture, as torture is more psychological...feel free to change the cat. be bold!--Urthogie 08:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Related Terms

Should the term "buttstroking" (using the stock/butt of a larger gun as a weapon) be included in this article? I don't have enough expertise in this area to feel qualified to edit the article directly. Fledchen 12:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I'd think the term "buttstroke" should be included at the bottom of the page, linked to the article (if there is any). Also - I'd always thought pistol-whipping was done with the weapon held "backwards", ie, gripping the barrel, with a finger or two within the trigger guard, and striking with the butt of the weapon. Maybe I've watched "Equilibrium" a few too many times. 214.13.173.15 (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

In confrontations, if you are close enough to strike someone with your firearm, you probably would not have the luxury of time to switch from holding the grip, to the barrel because they would be trying to do the same to you. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Grammar Police

"To Buffalo" is an infinitive, which are always nouns. Hence, it isn't a verb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.120.216 (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Adding A "Citation Needed" Tag

Under "Method," the current text says

 It was a fairly common and highly successful way to knock a man unconscious 

It's actually really hard to render someone unconscious the way it's shown in movies and TV. You either just hurt the victim or kill the victim; the amount of force required to render someone unconscious without doing them permanent damage (like a crushed skull) is a very narrow range, and probably varies from person to person.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 14:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I removed the tag. The citation is right there. And in these times when bufalloing was popular cracking someone's scull was a rather good idea under the circumstances. And did you actually read the article (and references)? It was not done the way you see in the movies. And where did you get the information that the narrow range of the force required is a problem? - üser:Altenmann >t 04:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I did look at the sources. Wellman doesn't say anything about rendering someone unconscious; just that they were pistol-whipped into submission. Hester was a contemporary of Wild Bill Hickock, in a time when authors might have been known to embellish their stories just a wee bit. I'd question whether that's a reliable source of information about effectively knocking someone out without killing them.

My issue was with the idea that this was a "fairly common and highly successful way to knock a man unconscious." There's no doubt that it's a successful way to get someone to do what you want them to; it's basically beating them into submission. But if you hit someone hard enough to knock them out, you run a very good risk of hitting them hard enough (especially if you're using a firearm ie a big ol' chunk of metal with edges and protrude-y bits) to stave in the skull. Yes, the skull is a chunk of hard bone, but it's not that hard to crush someone's skull and let all the life out, especially if you're (a) using the aforementioned pistol, particularly (b) against the temple, which is relatively thin.

I don't know about your experience with such things; mine comes from a conversation with an MD and one with someone who worked with law enforcement on self-defense issues, about how difficult it is to hit someone hard enough to produce unconsciousness without actually doing permanent or lethal damage. I'll take that over a cowboy's memoir. YMMV.

Since neither of the credited sources is really a very good one, I'd appreciate it if you'd agree to let me restore the citation needed tag.

Best regards,

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 21:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

When I was policing this article back in 2008 I was trying hard to find any usable refs (IMO the best way to kill OR is to replace it with referenced text, rather than simply delete or tag). And this was best I've got. Therefore I would rather change the language, to better match the source and add attribution. By the way, the "without damage" issue is not considered in the article. Once again, don't think in terms of today when police is being bullied by politically correct activists rather than afraid of. In times of "big iron", a sheriff was not worried much about "permanent damage" . - üser:Altenmann >t 02:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)