How Many Bullets Do You Need? Contrasting and Comparing Behavioral Outcomes and Cognitive Abilities When Using a Semiautomatic Versus Automatic Firearm

Abstract

Abstract Civilian, police, and military policies about firearms attract significant attention, yet the corresponding discussions tend to focus on retrospective evidence, such as the effectiveness of previous policies or reactions to recent tragedy. Less attention is devoted to proactive research issues. In particular, recent evidence has demonstrated a strong link between shooting performance and cognitive abilities, which provides numerous implications for policy decisions, assessment procedures, and firearm training. One important issue is how the weapon’s rate of fire affects performance. Specifically, how does behavior differ when one is using a semiautomatic versus automatic weapon, and which cognitive abilities are most important with each weapon type? Results indicated that participants fired nearly twice as many rounds when armed with automatic versus semiautomatic weapons, yet they showed no difference in successfully neutralizing hostile targets. However, participants were more than twice as likely to inflict civilian casualties with automatic weapons, and different cognitive tasks aligned with the likelihood of inflicting civilian casualties for each specific weapon type. This evidence suggests substantial differences in shooting behavior based on the rate of fire. Furthermore, the cognitive evidence predicted performance regarding hostile casualties and civilian casualties inflicted even when accounting for differences in gender, previous firearm use, and video game experience. This evidence supports the idea that different cognitive mechanisms may underlie different aspects of shooting performance, which could allow for targeted assessments and training based on firearm type.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 10 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.