User talk:Jrmwalsh

In the Wikipedia article entitled "Rifles in the American Civil War", under the heading "Modified ammunition types" there is a statement saying "Soldiers who used modified ammunition were putting themselves at considerable risk if taken prisoner, as anyone found with glass musket balls or other such ammunition was liable to be hanged or shot on sight." However, to "shoot on sight" means to shoot a person as soon as they are seen, not after they have been searched and found to be in possession of "modified ammunition". Therefore the sentence in the article is a logical contradiction because if someone was "shot on sight" then logically the shooter did not get close enough to have seen the modified ammunition on them. Conversely, if a person is found to be in possession of "modified ammunition" it is too late to "shoot them on sight." I don't know what should be written here but the story itself is obviously wrong because it is internally-inconsistent and self-contradictory. Thank you jrmwalsh