We use cookies to optimize our website and our service.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Is there an eloquent way to explain that if I’m going to shoot something, its going to be to kill it?
If people accept that fact that one bullet type is ultra deadly that leads me to also think that they accept that there is some sort of less-lethal bullet type and that its possible to shoot to wound and that doing so is some how more moral than lethal force.
Honestly, I’ve never been a big fan of the “shoot to kill” phrase or school of thought. If I’m shooting someone, the intention isn’t to kill him, but rather to get him (or her, I suppose) to stop whatever violent action they’re undertaking. It’s an unfortunate side effect of human physiology that putting a bullet in a place where it likely cause them to stop what they’re doing carries a high probability of killing them.
I don’t care for the “shoot to kill” phrasing either, if for no other reason than PR and legal purposes.
Realistically, if I have to shoot somebody, I really don’t care if it kills them or not, as long as they stop whatever prompted me to shoot them in the first place.
In fairness to the author of that piece, aren’t there Hydra-Shok branded hunting rounds, also? If so, she may just be confused and think all Hydra-Shok rounds are the same (she at least admits her ignorance, even if she does still go on to draw conclusions despite that ignorance).
Also, I stopped reading the comments to that post because my face got sore. Oh, the stupidity! o_O
According to Federal’s website, all their hunting ammo is branded under Power-Shok or Vital-Shok, not Hydra-Shok which is reserved only for self-defense pistol ammo.
Ah, I wasn’t sure. So rather than understandable confusion it shows what happens when someone willingly comments from known ignorance.
I’m not surprised, from her tone in the article and her remarks in the comments – she did a lot of “why’s he carrying a gun if he’s off duty” stupidity until a couple of LEO’s jumped in and set her straight.
If you can suffer through the entire comment section, there’s a lot of “OMFG PEOPLE WITH GUNS ARE ONLY CARRYING THEM TO KILL PEOPLE/DOGS” sentiment, which is quite painful to read.
I read the first couple of comments then closed the page…….
The guy is a cop and they ask why there are no charges? For shooting an aggressive dog?
I had a Husky, they are aggressive dogs, perhaps he over-reacted somewhat but I can understand shooting it when the dog started attacking his dog, personally I would have fired a round into the ground first to try to get the dog’s attention.
A dog that isn’t a hunting dog usually freezes or runs when a gun is fired. I’ve done it before.
I read quite a few of the replies this bolgger gave to questions and comments alike and it looks like a theme taken from the whitehouse ” never let a crisis go to waste”.
This person has taken an highly emotional circumstance and is trying to make an enormous amount of political hay off peoples emotions for their own antigun political stance so as to be a legend in their own mind .
Caleb..I stopped watching Lost shortly after one of them claimed to kill a Polar Bear with a Sig 9mm.
Kinda irrelevant..kinda not..but that’s the hollywood/general public mindset.
I can’t even make it past the blurb you cut…
Nick, on August 9, 2010 at 23:57 Said:
Caleb..I stopped watching Lost shortly after one of them claimed to kill a Polar Bear with a Sig 9mm.
Kinda irrelevant..kinda not..but that’s the hollywood/general public mindset.
____
That was the first episode. Sawyer dumped a whole mag into it, and it was Sawyer shooting that made it work. His badassery makes the 9mm roughly equivalent to a .30 Government.