Under his gun

Robert Markle finds the following in his crosshairs:

  • As an avid target-shooter, I am amazed when I hear television reporters
    explaining that during a particular melee, “shots rang out.
    I have never heard a firearm, irrespective of manufacturer, “ring!”
  • Then, he turned the gun on himself.” What’s wrong
    with “he shot himself?” After all, turning a gun on oneself
    might legitimately describe the act of readjusting a holster.
  • 2 thoughts on “Under his gun

    1. How about “shot and killed”? Just shooting doesn’t necessarily kill, of course. But, as there are relatively few bludgeoning deaths with guns of any type, if you mention the gun, “killed” is sufficient.

      I’d also lump “shots fired” in there. If they’re not fired, they’re not shots. Those are “bullets”.

    2. the criticism of “shot and killed” is senseless. most people shot are not killed. even if it were only 5% it would still be important information.

      similarly, the criticism of “shots fired” is illogical, presuming language rules imagined for this instance. a better case can be made for the assertion that a bullet can’t be fired, since a bullet has no propellant. for that matter, can one fire a gun? let’s not give nitpicking a bad name. relaxation is sometimes the best response to peeves.