I’m not the kind of person who arbitrarily assumes every “mainstream” publication and media outlet out there has an overt anti-gun bias. But it can’t be denied that when it comes to covering firearms, shooting, or hunting a positive (or even correct) spin is pretty much out of the question. Generally the absolute best we can hope for is to be treated with the reluctant impartiality usually reserved for, say, public figures charged but not yet convicted.
But when a great story involves firearms that can’t be portrayed in anything other than a positive light, well, they just have to hold their noses and roll with it.
Which is why I saw this story in – of all places – Slate.
From the story:
Navy snipers killed three Somali pirates who had been holding an American hostage in an 18-foot lifeboat on Sunday. The SEALs fired from a Navy destroyer 100 feet from the pirates. Can a sniper reliably hit a human target on a small boat bobbing on the ocean, or were they taking a chance with the hostage’s life? If the pirates’ heads were fully exposed, it would have been an easy shot. A sniper rifle is accurate to within a “minute of angle,” provided the shooter can keep his or her target in the crosshairs. That means that a good marksman can reliably hit a 1-inch target at 300 feet and reliably kill someone at 3,000 feet. The bobbing of the lifeboat would have been a factor, but snipers regularly shoot at moving targets from moving vehicles. (Advanced Navy SEAL training includes target practice from helicopters.)
Yes, that’s right. Slate, generally considered a “lefty-ish” publication, just published a story that – without a hint of tortured handwringing – explains the mechanics of shooting bad guys.
If anyone’s going to hell today, would you bring back a sno-cone for me? –Chad Love