4-year-old killed by celebratory bullet (in church with his mother)

ajc.com ^ | 1-1-10 | Alexis Stevens

[seemoAR]

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1199/can-a-bullet-fired-into-the-air-kill-someone-when-it-comes-down

I don’t know. There was a segment on a Shreveport, LA TV station after Christmas showing a hole in the roof and ceiling of a House trailer. I can’t remember if it damaged the the floor.

[Brytani]

I have no trouble believing it.

When I first saw the report I assumed it was Miami. Every 4th of July, New Years Eve or Halloween at least one person is killed by a stray bullet shot in celebrations. Often more than one.

I also saw Myth Busters most likely the bullet was stll on its direct path - someone shot at the top of the church for this to happen.

Sadly, a small child was killed with his parents sitting there. Prayers for the family.

[antiRepublicrat]

The forward velocity probably doesn’t mean much. What’s important is the terminal velocity. If the bullet is flopping around in the wind it has a fairly low terminal velocity due to a high drag coefficient and large cross section (actually they’d be constantly variable as the bullet flopped around). If it’s still stable and pointing nose down it has a very low drag coefficient and small cross section, which means it can hit a much higher terminal velocity, probably in the hundreds of meters per second.

[Protect the Bill of Rights]

I saw it on the news this morning, Happened just as described.

[OneWingedShark]

>You are mistaken. I allowed for practice with the weapon.

What you said was:
“There is no excuse for discharging a killing tool for other than it’s designed purpose, including practice.”

The way it is written ‘including’ attaches ‘practice’ to the no excuse clause. That is, what you are saying and hat you meant to say are two incredibly different things.

[OneWingedShark]

>You are mistaken. I allowed for practice with the weapon.

What you said was:
“There is no excuse for discharging a killing tool for other than it’s designed purpose, including practice.”

The way it is written ‘including’ attaches ‘practice’ to the no excuse clause. That is, what you are saying and hat you meant to say are two incredibly different things.

[ez]

If you say so...sorry for the confusion.

[jonascord]

Why don't you just slime back over to DU? Only a true liberal troll would make a stupid , ill-informed statement, attack the message bearer when he's called on his error, back it up with no facts, lie about whatever small experience he might have and just to top it off, never realize that the 10th, 11th and 12th Marines are artillery regiments and know a sh#tload more about ballistics, whether the round weighs 150 grains or 40 pounds, than you do.

[TigersEye]

You’re an idiot.

[GingisK]

I do, in fact, know this. You must presume that the 48 degrees poped out of nowhere. You must also assume I didn't go for 45 degrees out of ignorance.

I think it is safe to assume that the bullet was not fired straight up or at any high angle to have killed that little boy. I was refuting the "Myth Busters" negative finding on this, since we do know that the boy was killed by a bullet that came through the roof. Now, either the boy died of something else, or a bullet came through the ceiling.

I am assuming that the boy was killed by exactly what they thought killed him. "Myth Busters" could be wrong or the trajectory wasn't the same as assumed by that "highly scientific source". Do you belive that something you see on TV just HAS to be fact, refuting all other evidence?

By the way, the figures you are using are related to "maximum effective range". Bullets carry a lot farther than that. The MER is a judgement upon a weapon's use in a military context.

[mamelukesabre]

Rifle bullets do travel farther, much farther. Handgun bullets do not. I am not a fan of myth busters. I think they are idiots.

My numbers have nothing to do with rifles.

[GingisK]

I think we are in agreement, but each of us just likes to “pick different nits”.