Yes, Acantha's comments read between the lines "if he's dead, the d-bag won't be interested in torturing him. We can put him into cryostasis/whatever later and keep him 'dead'"...
The roller coaster just tipped over the edge guys, hold on tight, it's going to be a screamer!
By the way, "Ack!". LOVE it! The mental image that gave me had me chortling for a long time.
I also note that Decimus has been removed rather quickly by Kali. At this point Lynn can do little but rage. Until now she has been waiting to be rescued really. Now I think the waiting is done. she has her mothers smarts, now she will use them.
It remains to be seen whether she goes into hysteria, a red hot rage, or an ice cold fury. Either of the first two would make the situation more difficult, while the last...would probably end up with drekhead being forced to abdicate the throne to Acantha, either before, during, or after Lynn's castration of him, with everyone present beng scared absolutely shitless of Lynn and in dire need of a change of undergarments.
In an ice cold fury, Lynn would most definitely do Dolly proud.
Just spent the last week reading DataChasers from the beginning and caught up to today's comic. It was like the worst cliffhanger I've ever experienced (referencing the 80's TV show). Can't wait to see more.
Also keep your boots on, and perhaps waterproof them.
Also, here is your standard issued tinfoil hat, it is to be worn when guessing what will happen next.
I found everyone's responses to my thoughts on lethal force the other day to be quite interesting and thought provoking. I'd like to share some more thoughts and hear responses.
Before I continue, I'd like to clarify that I've never been a violent person (I've never felt the urge to punch someone), I've never held an actual firearm, and I hope I'll never need to use one. I've never been in a life threatening situation, either. I consider myself to be a very rational person, however, and have noticed that in surprising/scary situations, that I tend to be much more calm than anyone else I know. I don't know what that makes me, other than me, so make of it what you will.
Hmm... collecting thoughts...
As someone who deals with many types of general and specialized tools, I've come to consider just about anything a human can use to be a tool, including firearms. A firearm, in my estimate, is a tool intended to apply a great deal of force in a small area at a considerable distance. Obviously, the most common effect of projecting this kind of force at an object is the destruction of that object, and likewise for most organisms (like people). I still question, whether the only purpose that is acceptable when drawing a weapon outside of a firing range is to kill. Granted that firearms are rarely useful for causing anything but destruction, but I don't see why that destruction has to be lethal. Would it not be reasonable to shatter a skylight with a firearm to provide a distraction, should the opportunity present itself? I would also mention the possibility of shooting targets that could explode (such as the ever-present red barrels in video games), but I've learned that there are very few things that can be made to explode by a few shots from a conventional firearm. And it simply isn't reasonable to expect a gunfight to happen in an environment where such handy targets are present.
Someone also argued that it makes more sense to aim for center of mass because you can never be sure of your accuracy and you should always go for a high-percentage shot over a low percentage one. I think I understand that, but it seems to me that if what you've got is a relatively low power weapon, such as a 9mm pistol loaded with plain slugs that fire at subsonic speed and your target is wearing body armor (or a vest at any rate), wouldn't a center of mass shot be relatively low percentage? Granted, the impact will probably stun the target even if the round doesn't penetrate, but by firing, you've certainly given away your presence and location, so unless you and your allies outnumber your foes considerably, wouldn't it be safer to to go for what would otherwise be a low percentage shot that has a higher chance of putting your target out for at least the remainder of the fight?
As for reaction times and the idea that it's best to go with the simplest option so as to avoid wasting critical time thinking in the middle of a fight, I have some thoughts there, too. Again, I've never held or discharged a firearm in my life, so the closest experiences I've got are airosoft and paintball fights, and precious few of those. And then video games. I know these don't really compare to a life or death situation, but it's the best I've got to go on, so please humor me. When I'm playing a tactical shooter, I often find that I have ample time after noticing my targets and identifying them as such, while I move my weapon into position, to decide where the most tactically advantageous place to put my sights is, be that around the chest of an opponents, on their head, or at some other object in the environment that may be of use to distract or stun them. I don't know if I'd be able to react that way in an actual gunfight, but I don't know whether I should believe the survivors who say "it all happened so fast" or the ones that say "time seemed to slow to a crawl".
I realize that in many ways, I have no idea what I'm talking about, so I'd like to clarify that I'm not trying to offend anyone or tell them how to do something I've never done. I'm looking for insight. I want to understand why things are done the way they are and if I can spot what looks to me like a way to improve the current method, then that would be great. The present methods have been the standard for an awfully long time, though, so I don't expect that. What I'm trying to say is that I don't want anyone to think I'm assaulting their beliefs or questioning their experience (though of course in a online, anonymous, environment, I'll obviously take any new information with a pinch of salt, as in only prudent).
Anyway, I'd like to hear the thoughts and opinions of those who have something to say.
Thanks,
Rms
P.S.[edit]: Wow. I didn't realize until I posted just now how much I wrote. I'm sorry if that annoys anyone.
I'll add my two cents here one point at a time, hopefully those with more training (I'm former military, but my knowledge beyond the minimal range time the army requires for support personnel is primarily book knowledge) will chime in and correct any mistakes I make.
Keeping a level head in a dangerous situation is a good thing, especially if it's combined with training on how to respond appropriately.
I'm not sure how shooting out a skylight would do anything but draw attention directly to you (sound of the gunshot trumps shattering glass via sheer volume).
Training to aim for center of mass is pretty much the standard for a reason. The smaller the weapon, the less accurate it is. The same goes for distance/range. The further away the target, the less accurate. Also, even if they are wearing a vest, the kinetic force of impact will slow the target, giving you a split second of time to follow up. Especially with higher caliber rounds, which might actually knock an opponent with body armor flat on their back. Also, it's fairly common that even if the target isn't armored, it'll take several rounds to stop them and end their threat. That's actually one of the reasons law enforcement uses hollow points. More damage from each round = less rounds needed. Another reason for hollow points is that they're less likely to continue on after exiting the back of the target to injure bystanders.
Reaction times are all about training and reflexes. As for time contraction/dilation in such situations, I believe that's a combination of training and how the body and mind react to the massive dose of adrenaline that floods the body in such high threat situations. When playing a video game, you don't get that adrenaline because you know that there's no actual danger.
The problem with 'firing to distract', at least in my mind, looks like this: If the other guy isn't using lethal force, I shouldn't have a gun in hand, regardless of whether I'm targeting him or a skylight. If he is using lethal force, and I have a chance to bring my gun into play, shooting anything that's not him will, at best, waste what might be my only tactical opportunity, and at worst, will panic him into doing something terminal. In short, there is no winning scenario that starts with a 'warning shot'. In your example of a skylight, there's an additional problem. "What goes up, must come down". One of *the* rules of using a gun is to make sure you know where every round is going. Obviously, this is one of those rules that gets broken (or at least bent) a lot...but sending a round up and out like that is just begging for trouble. Murphy's Law says it will come down somewhere dangerous. Here in Phoenix, we have several dozen people hurt every major holiday because stupid people celebrate by firing guns into the air...it's like a class-action Darwin award.
As for shooting center-of-mass vs body armor, you actually point out why that's still the best course of action for most people (Jelly Bryce and Roland Deschain being obvious exceptions). You just need to restate the questions you asked in order to get the answer: Is it better to take a high-percentage shot that will stun the target, vs a low-percentage kill shot? Take the high percentage shot, always...if you hit, your target is disabled, even if it's just momentarily...giving you time to take careful aim for the following shot. Better to have *some* impact than none.
As for revealing your position, if the other guy doesn't know you're there, why do you have a gun out? GTFOD. If he does know you're there, or GTFOD isn't an option, then you take the best shot you can (most likely to hit), and play the hand you're dealt by the skinny fellow in the black robe....
Velvet do raise a very good point, the adrenaline high you get from being in a dangerous situation is great for Melee fighting .. but not so good for making a precise aim.
Warning shots actually do serve a purpose in some applications.
Sometimes they are used when a target does not comply with an order, and they are also sometimes used in vehicular combat to make it abundantly clear that if they do not comply you're gonna be aiming somewhere other than the bow with something a little bigger than a .50
I agree with much of what has been said here, but I'd like to add this RMS, coming from my experience both as a former army officer and a student of military history: level-headedness in combat or life-threatening situations is not to be counted on. Any person, from well-trained veteran to green newbie can find themselves in a range of emotional reaction during a sudden crisis. A practiced warrior can suddenly freeze up while the jerk you wrote off can be the day's "war hero." Shock, fatigue, freshness, accumulation of traumatic experiences and many other factors can mean radically different performance in anyone from day to day. A senior NCO told me of an experience he and friends had in Vietnam: they were top-form infantry soldiers who walked into an ambush in a village. In ten seconds they had a firefight that left half of his friends and most of the enemy dead. He and other survivors do not remember the next few hours, but the medics who found them told them that they had been sitting by the bodies of the dead and a LIVE, WOUNDED, SCREAMING foe for the whole time. They had clearly gone into shock over the sudden death of half the squad, and had to be carried out of there. All preparation, training, and honed instinct fell away in an instant.
To combat such things, the military and police focus on drills, automatic responses and leadership. Leaders have to recognize the dynamics of situations (including changing mental states) and take effective actions to "develop" and "prosecute" the fight. Specific tactics (like "shooting for center of mass" or "head shots") come and go based on technology, situations, ethical and moral considerations, leader evaluations, and (as noted above) even the mental capabilities of people to do something or not on a given day. You try to "train the way you want to you fight," but the reality is that like plans, such preparation lasts exactly until the first shot is fired. Then it's chaos, react and fight, live and die. And leaders trying to keep their heads and pick up the pieces.
You think there will be that much left of him, Rash? I'm not so sure Dolly will LEAVE that much. Especially if she finds out about the attempted rape of Acantha and killing of Kyle (who SHE liked).
What seems to called for is a cyrostasis cell and someone with the authority to order one of the few high grade ones kept at the palace to be used. Um, hello your grace, could we trouble you...
If I was truly caring for the welfare of Boy Blunder, I would still find it very hard to feel concerned for his life at this point. First, since Rose had all the proof that Kyle was an idiot, she undoubtably did what she could to make him idiot-proof while she had him blessedly unconscious. Second, from a pure story-telling POV, this is far too early for Kyle to get whacked. Currently he's the only one who has the ability to fix Nova Roma's AI, and also has a shot of Acantha (via Lynn) vouching for him. And there has been too much narrative invested in setting him up as an important supporting character for him to be tossed aside with such apparent caprice.
After all if we could predict what happened to every character just from the way he gets introduced, that would make the rest of the reading rather boring.
Good writers don't undermine all the groundwork they so carefully laid, not unless they have an even-more-compelling story reason for it. I have confidence that due to the way that the story has been going so far, if Kyle does die from this, the whole story will pivot at that point and go thundering off in a new direction.
So far our authors have contented themselves with playing a game of simmering pots and rising tensions. The main question here is whether Kyle, having just raised the tension some more, gets carted off-screen to go recover and continue simmering, or if this is the lid blowing off the top of his pot, starting a chain reaction of dramatic explosions.
I don't think that the whole kitchen is about to explode here yet, seeing as Dolly & CC and Team Black are not quite ensconced enough yet to start the mayhem as effectively as we would be expecting. Both Dolly & CC and Team Black have just arrived, and haven't wormed their way into the structure of the place to make as much of an impact as we are all anticipating them to make. Things can't go down without all the pieces in position.
Actually, I'm thinking a smart monkey could fix Aeneas, Thor. Provided that someone like Tokyo Rose was guiding them (and they would LISTEN).
I think Kyle would have made it EASIER though because she wouldn't have to explain everything... Plus, he was coming with or without Rose's blessing. She was trying to channel him into something he would be good at to actually HELP the situation. All he had to do was listen.
I believe Kyle would have better access to Aeneas than Dr. Silver - and I believe Dr. Silver is better versed in software than hardware and in integration and troubleshooting integration while Kyle is great with hardware. So I guess first off Kyle needs to fix some hardware then Dr. Silver can guide the re-integration...
Yeah, I found this part of the story to be a little unlikely. I'd have figured that Kyle would have seen all the guards and their weapons everywhere on the way in that he'd have been smart enough to know he couldn't just walk out with Lynn.
Bullets don't knock down people. Equal and opposite reaction remember, if it did not knock down the shooter it won't knock down the shootee. :) That's a TV invention. People fall down from the pain and shock, not from physics.
As for body armor, getting shot while wearing it HURTS. Think broken ribs and organ trauma. Personal experience on
that part although it a LOT better than the alternative.
As for the target of the moment, after all, mom lost her beau the same way and her reaction was a decades long withdrawal. Mom did not have Acantha as a support pillar though.
Firing a weapon of any significant caliber does, on occasion, knock people down, especially if it's their first time with a large weapon and they aren't prepared for the kick.
Getting hit with a bullet of any significance while wearing body armor that keeps it from penetrating is quite sufficient to imbalance someone to the point that they fall over - this is what people commonly refer to as "knocking someone down", so yes, a bullet is quite up to the task, just like giving them a sudden, unexpected push.
Of course, the Hollywood "knock them into the air and down on their back" thing is, yes, quite ridiculous, and not everyone who takes a sudden, unexpected push (or non-penetrating bullet) is going to be knocked down, but the physics of it is quite sufficient.
I'm pretty sure Lynn isn't an Epiphyte, KarToon so I can't see her turning green. :-D
Now turning into a monster capable of winning TeeDee's approval by the body count she racks up, you may very well have a point. Lynn is getting ANGRY, very, very angry I think.
Not sure I follow you Weiser. I think Acantha's actions will CEMENT that relationship (and it was already strong, IMO). The only relationship that might suffer is the one she had with Deck...
Oh, and she had a "I hate you relationship" with him (from his kidnapping her)... so I don't think this is going to make it MUCH worse. Though if Lynn gets the chance, she will SO punt his royal doucheness' a$$ into the next galaxy. Be it with bombs, bullets or a kick to the groin... Though she would prefer putting her shock sword into his groin and LEAVING it there until the power burns out. Make sure he doesn't get to spread those genes around.
Kyle's actions (and possibly death) could have a specific function in the plot, too, set-up notwithstanding. It looks like the Cassians are being recalled, for one thing. And now that Lynn is pissed, who knows what else will happen?
Well, that's messy. You guys are doing great things with the blood effects, very realistic.
As for the falling down debate, I took a rifle round to the thigh in 2006. Felt like getting hit with a baseball bat, but I did not fall down until I tripped on a curb. (got right back up again too) Bullets, esp from a pistol, have a very small frontal area and are just not that powerful.
A large pistol bullet has a push of about 3 pounds of force concentrated on an area about the size of your fingertip. Most are less.
I think a bullet that hits body armor would be more likely to knock you down for the simple face that it's not just punching a hole straight through whatever it hits
It's a matter of energy over a very small area. A bullet measures well under 1/2" in diameter for even the largest pistol rounds. Apply 3 lbs of force to your chest with a fingertip. Does it knock you over?
Again, if it does not knock the shooter down, it won't knock you down. You can fire a modern pistol with just a thumb to steady the grip and a finger to pull the trigger. That's actually a teaching method to demonstrate recoil effects. The energy is just not there.
Are you saying that a .50 caliber pistol round is *not* the 1/2" in diameter, that the caliber indicates?
As far as recoil...a portion of the recoil energy is lost in the slide action. Many modern pistols have additional means of reducing the recoil incorporated into the design. The majority of the energy is expended by the gases pushing the projectile through and out the end of the barrel. Path of least resistance, neh? The pistol itself is held in place by your grip, so all the energy goes out the barrel.
Respectfully, John, your data is incorrect. the amount ft/pd pressure of a bullet is dependent on the kinetic energy produced by the mass of the bullet AND the velocity of the bullet.
Read the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_energy
for specific calculations on determining Kinetic energy of a bullet.
Kyle fell down because he was nearly dead.. not because of the gun that shot him .. So the point is moot. Okay .. is dead ( YAAAY! ) The gun only made him fall down because it punched large holes in his body .. 3 of them actually
If they get Kyle into a cryotank in time they may be able to save him. Heart stoppage can be reversed, brain death cannot. He just may become a cyborg if they can save his memories in time to implant them into a positronic brain.
Re: Bullet strikes; a .45 round, .457 Mag or a .44 Mag will drop you like a bad habit.
No, for just this once, Lynn, the prince didn't murder anyone. He shot a gunman who was threatening his life and property. Your boyfriend surrendered his moral authority on the assumption he could be the action hero.
Things might go even more sideways. XD
Decimus FINALLY enraged Lynn.
The roller coaster just tipped over the edge guys, hold on tight, it's going to be a screamer!
By the way, "Ack!". LOVE it! The mental image that gave me had me chortling for a long time.
I also note that Decimus has been removed rather quickly by Kali. At this point Lynn can do little but rage. Until now she has been waiting to be rescued really. Now I think the waiting is done. she has her mothers smarts, now she will use them.
In an ice cold fury, Lynn would most definitely do Dolly proud.
Good stuff, nice timing. :)
Oh, and welcome.
Also, here is your standard issued tinfoil hat, it is to be worn when guessing what will happen next.
Before I continue, I'd like to clarify that I've never been a violent person (I've never felt the urge to punch someone), I've never held an actual firearm, and I hope I'll never need to use one. I've never been in a life threatening situation, either. I consider myself to be a very rational person, however, and have noticed that in surprising/scary situations, that I tend to be much more calm than anyone else I know. I don't know what that makes me, other than me, so make of it what you will.
Hmm... collecting thoughts...
As someone who deals with many types of general and specialized tools, I've come to consider just about anything a human can use to be a tool, including firearms. A firearm, in my estimate, is a tool intended to apply a great deal of force in a small area at a considerable distance. Obviously, the most common effect of projecting this kind of force at an object is the destruction of that object, and likewise for most organisms (like people). I still question, whether the only purpose that is acceptable when drawing a weapon outside of a firing range is to kill. Granted that firearms are rarely useful for causing anything but destruction, but I don't see why that destruction has to be lethal. Would it not be reasonable to shatter a skylight with a firearm to provide a distraction, should the opportunity present itself? I would also mention the possibility of shooting targets that could explode (such as the ever-present red barrels in video games), but I've learned that there are very few things that can be made to explode by a few shots from a conventional firearm. And it simply isn't reasonable to expect a gunfight to happen in an environment where such handy targets are present.
Someone also argued that it makes more sense to aim for center of mass because you can never be sure of your accuracy and you should always go for a high-percentage shot over a low percentage one. I think I understand that, but it seems to me that if what you've got is a relatively low power weapon, such as a 9mm pistol loaded with plain slugs that fire at subsonic speed and your target is wearing body armor (or a vest at any rate), wouldn't a center of mass shot be relatively low percentage? Granted, the impact will probably stun the target even if the round doesn't penetrate, but by firing, you've certainly given away your presence and location, so unless you and your allies outnumber your foes considerably, wouldn't it be safer to to go for what would otherwise be a low percentage shot that has a higher chance of putting your target out for at least the remainder of the fight?
As for reaction times and the idea that it's best to go with the simplest option so as to avoid wasting critical time thinking in the middle of a fight, I have some thoughts there, too. Again, I've never held or discharged a firearm in my life, so the closest experiences I've got are airosoft and paintball fights, and precious few of those. And then video games. I know these don't really compare to a life or death situation, but it's the best I've got to go on, so please humor me. When I'm playing a tactical shooter, I often find that I have ample time after noticing my targets and identifying them as such, while I move my weapon into position, to decide where the most tactically advantageous place to put my sights is, be that around the chest of an opponents, on their head, or at some other object in the environment that may be of use to distract or stun them. I don't know if I'd be able to react that way in an actual gunfight, but I don't know whether I should believe the survivors who say "it all happened so fast" or the ones that say "time seemed to slow to a crawl".
I realize that in many ways, I have no idea what I'm talking about, so I'd like to clarify that I'm not trying to offend anyone or tell them how to do something I've never done. I'm looking for insight. I want to understand why things are done the way they are and if I can spot what looks to me like a way to improve the current method, then that would be great. The present methods have been the standard for an awfully long time, though, so I don't expect that. What I'm trying to say is that I don't want anyone to think I'm assaulting their beliefs or questioning their experience (though of course in a online, anonymous, environment, I'll obviously take any new information with a pinch of salt, as in only prudent).
Anyway, I'd like to hear the thoughts and opinions of those who have something to say.
Thanks,
Rms
P.S.[edit]: Wow. I didn't realize until I posted just now how much I wrote. I'm sorry if that annoys anyone.
Keeping a level head in a dangerous situation is a good thing, especially if it's combined with training on how to respond appropriately.
I'm not sure how shooting out a skylight would do anything but draw attention directly to you (sound of the gunshot trumps shattering glass via sheer volume).
Training to aim for center of mass is pretty much the standard for a reason. The smaller the weapon, the less accurate it is. The same goes for distance/range. The further away the target, the less accurate. Also, even if they are wearing a vest, the kinetic force of impact will slow the target, giving you a split second of time to follow up. Especially with higher caliber rounds, which might actually knock an opponent with body armor flat on their back. Also, it's fairly common that even if the target isn't armored, it'll take several rounds to stop them and end their threat. That's actually one of the reasons law enforcement uses hollow points. More damage from each round = less rounds needed. Another reason for hollow points is that they're less likely to continue on after exiting the back of the target to injure bystanders.
Reaction times are all about training and reflexes. As for time contraction/dilation in such situations, I believe that's a combination of training and how the body and mind react to the massive dose of adrenaline that floods the body in such high threat situations. When playing a video game, you don't get that adrenaline because you know that there's no actual danger.
As for shooting center-of-mass vs body armor, you actually point out why that's still the best course of action for most people (Jelly Bryce and Roland Deschain being obvious exceptions). You just need to restate the questions you asked in order to get the answer: Is it better to take a high-percentage shot that will stun the target, vs a low-percentage kill shot? Take the high percentage shot, always...if you hit, your target is disabled, even if it's just momentarily...giving you time to take careful aim for the following shot. Better to have *some* impact than none.
As for revealing your position, if the other guy doesn't know you're there, why do you have a gun out? GTFOD. If he does know you're there, or GTFOD isn't an option, then you take the best shot you can (most likely to hit), and play the hand you're dealt by the skinny fellow in the black robe....
Center of Mass is a good tactic.
Sometimes they are used when a target does not comply with an order, and they are also sometimes used in vehicular combat to make it abundantly clear that if they do not comply you're gonna be aiming somewhere other than the bow with something a little bigger than a .50
To combat such things, the military and police focus on drills, automatic responses and leadership. Leaders have to recognize the dynamics of situations (including changing mental states) and take effective actions to "develop" and "prosecute" the fight. Specific tactics (like "shooting for center of mass" or "head shots") come and go based on technology, situations, ethical and moral considerations, leader evaluations, and (as noted above) even the mental capabilities of people to do something or not on a given day. You try to "train the way you want to you fight," but the reality is that like plans, such preparation lasts exactly until the first shot is fired. Then it's chaos, react and fight, live and die. And leaders trying to keep their heads and pick up the pieces.
DEAD now. Lynn's Mentally traumatized..........Yeah Dolly is gonna Turn him into a SOCK PUPPET now
we can all agree The reign of DEci is coming RAPIDLY to a close....
Hm...
full cyborg.
i guess.
Kyle is .. expendable.
After all if we could predict what happened to every character just from the way he gets introduced, that would make the rest of the reading rather boring.
So far our authors have contented themselves with playing a game of simmering pots and rising tensions. The main question here is whether Kyle, having just raised the tension some more, gets carted off-screen to go recover and continue simmering, or if this is the lid blowing off the top of his pot, starting a chain reaction of dramatic explosions.
I don't think that the whole kitchen is about to explode here yet, seeing as Dolly & CC and Team Black are not quite ensconced enough yet to start the mayhem as effectively as we would be expecting. Both Dolly & CC and Team Black have just arrived, and haven't wormed their way into the structure of the place to make as much of an impact as we are all anticipating them to make. Things can't go down without all the pieces in position.
I think Kyle would have made it EASIER though because she wouldn't have to explain everything... Plus, he was coming with or without Rose's blessing. She was trying to channel him into something he would be good at to actually HELP the situation. All he had to do was listen.
I believe Kyle would have better access to Aeneas than Dr. Silver - and I believe Dr. Silver is better versed in software than hardware and in integration and troubleshooting integration while Kyle is great with hardware. So I guess first off Kyle needs to fix some hardware then Dr. Silver can guide the re-integration...
As for body armor, getting shot while wearing it HURTS. Think broken ribs and organ trauma. Personal experience on
that part although it a LOT better than the alternative.
As for the target of the moment, after all, mom lost her beau the same way and her reaction was a decades long withdrawal. Mom did not have Acantha as a support pillar though.
But yeah, the bullet alone won't so it.
Getting hit with a bullet of any significance while wearing body armor that keeps it from penetrating is quite sufficient to imbalance someone to the point that they fall over - this is what people commonly refer to as "knocking someone down", so yes, a bullet is quite up to the task, just like giving them a sudden, unexpected push.
Of course, the Hollywood "knock them into the air and down on their back" thing is, yes, quite ridiculous, and not everyone who takes a sudden, unexpected push (or non-penetrating bullet) is going to be knocked down, but the physics of it is quite sufficient.
At this point, I'm past guessing what's going to happen next. I'm just along for the ride...
Now turning into a monster capable of winning TeeDee's approval by the body count she racks up, you may very well have a point. Lynn is getting ANGRY, very, very angry I think.
Kid,
Your
Lifepoints?
Expended.
Oh, and she had a "I hate you relationship" with him (from his kidnapping her)... so I don't think this is going to make it MUCH worse. Though if Lynn gets the chance, she will SO punt his royal doucheness' a$$ into the next galaxy. Be it with bombs, bullets or a kick to the groin... Though she would prefer putting her shock sword into his groin and LEAVING it there until the power burns out. Make sure he doesn't get to spread those genes around.
As for the falling down debate, I took a rifle round to the thigh in 2006. Felt like getting hit with a baseball bat, but I did not fall down until I tripped on a curb. (got right back up again too) Bullets, esp from a pistol, have a very small frontal area and are just not that powerful.
A large pistol bullet has a push of about 3 pounds of force concentrated on an area about the size of your fingertip. Most are less.
Again, if it does not knock the shooter down, it won't knock you down. You can fire a modern pistol with just a thumb to steady the grip and a finger to pull the trigger. That's actually a teaching method to demonstrate recoil effects. The energy is just not there.
As far as recoil...a portion of the recoil energy is lost in the slide action. Many modern pistols have additional means of reducing the recoil incorporated into the design. The majority of the energy is expended by the gases pushing the projectile through and out the end of the barrel. Path of least resistance, neh? The pistol itself is held in place by your grip, so all the energy goes out the barrel.
Read the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_energy
for specific calculations on determining Kinetic energy of a bullet.
Re: Bullet strikes; a .45 round, .457 Mag or a .44 Mag will drop you like a bad habit.
Piss her the fuck off.
Kyle murdered himself.
Ce n'etait pas une crime, peut-etre; mais c'etait une faute.