I have yet to see one of their gun related shows where they don't screw something up, either out of sheer stupidity, ignorance, or smug leftist arrogance.
The one who wears a beret is about average of what you might see at the range on an off weekend, (barely safe enough to turn your back on), but the rest of that mouth breathing bunch...
“If you are naif enough to believe what two San Fwancisco “scientists”, (who make a habit of getting it wrong), say about guns, we are REALLY screwed.”
I make ammo and measure the ballistics. Unless that bullet was fired from above the church, the article is incorrect. A bullet fired from high up, horizontally through a roof could deflect and kill somebody sitting in the church. A bullet fired upward, spent and falling downward through a roof did not kill the boy.
Terrific. You're clearly smarter than they are, and more worldly than me - whom you characterize as a rube for believing two San Francisco homosexuals - who make a tidy income busting myths.
I'm interested in reading you mathematical calculations where your superior intellect and experience prove beyond doubt that a projectile weighing appx. 140 grains, traveling at it's terminal velocity for free-fall, can still manage to retain the appropriate level of force to penetrate a roof - to include the shingle, sheathing, plywood, insulation and drywall - and then deliver a fatal blow to a human skull.
Don't forget to include the part where your magic bullet, falling from it's apex, and losing all but minimum forward velocity, also manages to maintain the appropriate spin-rate to guarantee aerodynamic stability.
I look forward to your answer, professor.