To me, it's evidence that the writer has little or no military experience. There is no good logical reason to abandon the rifle so early - unless, and this is a long shot (literally!), when she shot the three guards, she noticed the rifle was not reliable in some way, like the sights were damaged, the weapon was out of ammo, or she didn't think she'd need the rifle again and thought a closer-quarters weapon like the pistol was better. But given she shot the three guards successfully, it's weird and bad writing. Why abandon a third weapon you just used successfully if you still had ammo?
Re: Can you explain?
Date: 2020-09-03 02:05 am (UTC)