![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
(no subject)
Why would you need to shoot the fish if they're already in a freaking barrel?
Come to that, wouldn't that put holes in the barrel?
Actually, no. It wouldn't. Because bullets lose velocity amazingly fast when traveling through water. So the fish would probably be okay. And so would the barrel.
Also, water diffracts light, so you'd probably miss the fish, especially if you're as lazy as the expression implies.
This whole thing is like shooting fish in a barrel; it makes no sense at all.
ETA: Never mind. Mythbusters proved that the shockwave from the bullet will kill the fish even if you miss wildly. Huh.
Come to that, wouldn't that put holes in the barrel?
Actually, no. It wouldn't. Because bullets lose velocity amazingly fast when traveling through water. So the fish would probably be okay. And so would the barrel.
Also, water diffracts light, so you'd probably miss the fish, especially if you're as lazy as the expression implies.
This whole thing is like shooting fish in a barrel; it makes no sense at all.
ETA: Never mind. Mythbusters proved that the shockwave from the bullet will kill the fish even if you miss wildly. Huh.
no subject
no subject