What's to discuss?
The fact his 'just behind the shoulder' shot was somewhat further back?
Perhaps that his carrying a concealed gun and admitting hed try so shoot a dog if it attacked him?
Maybe it's that he can't distinguish between closely related calibres?
Praps the legalities of him pulling the trigger not knowing what or whom the gun is pointing at?
Below is a link to my website.
All that, Tony. I was amazed at how 'normal' he thought all this was. I would be scared to live within 100 miles from him...
"Only in America."
I think the guy is an inspiration. Perhaps you would all prefer he sat around claiming his benefits like a good 'woe is me' Brit ????
Fekin nuts !
Can you imagine the hail of bullets flying around next time he gets spooked by a dog ?
Pretty sure I have had this guy as a client, or someone very like him, also had a telephone booking from Lee-Van-Cleef and Clint Eastwood , however my hearings not as good as it once was and I must have misheard , when they turned up it was actually Laurel and Hardy.
It's a difficult one isn't it. . . I appreciate the lad is entitled to enjoy his shooting like everyone else, but surely the overriding bias should fall on the side of safety.
From a personal safety issue, I have seen statistics here in the states that say they handicapped are disproportionate victims of crime. I can clearly see how a blind man would want to be able to be armed for self protection. I also seem to remember that most attacks do not occur in well populated areas or times, so if he did need to shoot in defense the likelihood of striking an innocent is probably quite low.
From a hunting standpoint I have very mixed reviews. I am familiar with North Dakota and wildfowl there often. Much of that state is sparsely populated to a point that would make the highlands of Scotland a veritable overpopulated suburb. On the other hand, game (even vermin) deserves a humane kill. The shot on the pheasant was quite acceptable, but the one shot we see on the deer does appear less optimal.