(07-07-2022 08:05 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 07:38 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 07:23 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 12:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  By the way 93, still looking for clarification on 'military style injury', and how that is different from 'non- military style injury'.

Perhaps not the best descriptor... was typing fast at work.

Still thought it seemed obvious... like when trauma surgeons differentiate the type of bodily damage they see in wartime situations as opposed to those that they expect to see with civilian trauma.

Quote:lastly, just letting you know, the Highland park guy did not use an 'assault rifle', nor a 'military style rifle', or any of the other bugaboo words that people love to emote with.

Found out he used a SUB2000. Shoots pistol rounds.

Will a 9mm create 'military style injuries'? I want to make sure I get the concept down tight. Personally, I dont know what a 'military style injury' is in relation to what I would only assume would be the negative, or a 'non- military style injury'. Aside from the sheer emotive effect of a calling something a 'military style injury' simply for shock and fluff points.

That's all super cool about the weapon used in this one specific instance. My point was a general one and didn't reference this Highland Park shooting.

Got it Just preachy in general and bootstrapping off on inapt circumstance.

Explains the emoji level preachy phrase of ‘military style injuries.’

I guess ‘gunshot wounds’ was too mundane for the purpose and emotive thrust you felt was needed. Kind of ‘military style exposition’ one might be tempted to say…..

It is truly amazing that you at all people would rage so hard against emotive language. Massive disconnect but oh well. Moving on…