Boy killed by bullet 'fired three miles away'

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
What a tragedy, only the good die young though.

Proof positive religion will not save you! Did the gun kill the boy or his parents dragging a three year old to church?

Cause and effect.

That is the same attitude that people have in corrupt courts of foreign
countries.Example:The american tourist who had a car accident in a
foreign country is automatically guilty.The reasoning behind this,if he
hadn't been in the country,there wouldn't have been an accident.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


So,you feel the parents should be charged with a crime for taking the
boy to church?Good luck trying to get that one passed!

Originally posted by mamabeth
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

So,you feel the parents should be charged with a crime for taking the
boy to church?Good luck trying to get that one passed!

his/her "reasoning" is bizzarre in the extreme, people have died from gunshots at concerts, in the home, at the mall etc, what exactly is he proposing that it was the "place" that killed them

Someone with issues about religion, which he/she probably needs to discuss with a specialist

reply to post by RuledBySecrecy


I'm a gun owner and I know how serious a responsibility owning a gun is.
That is why we have laws and rules for owning firearms.Only idiots fire
guns up into the air.
I passed a C.C.W. course, back in late october.I am applying for my
license tomorrow.I had to go through several hours of classtime and tests.
I also had to prove I could safely handle and fire my weapon in order
to pass the course.
I don't want guns removed from the public.I want more people being
held responsible for their actions concerning their firearms.

I am just hearing reports that the boy is not dead.

reply to post by john124


Thank you for posting this. What a story!
That would certainly be such an unexpected tragedy for the family. It's too bad.

reply to post by np6888


I would have thought that the only reason that this is not more common comes down to a mixture of geography and geometry.
In normal use , a rifles round, heads horizontaly from the weapon to a target . If someone was very irresponsible and set a target up in a busy shopping centre and tried to hit it from outside for instance, then there would be a high chance of hitting someone accidentaly , heres why . When you look at a person or even a crowd of people from the front, then they present a target of a fair size. You have the length and bredth of the chest, legs , head, and arms to maybe hit.
When you look downward off the top of a building or something, then all you see is the top of a persons head, and thier shoulders. This means that when the round is dropping from the air, the chances of impacting a person , decrease dramaticaly .
The unfortunate fact however ,is that if in the unfortunate and unlikely event that someone IS hit from this angle, then because the head accounts for a high percentage of the total area of the top down target (i.e. thier head makes up for something like forty percent of the target they present to a verticaly falling round) the chances of this impact being fatal are larger.One might be able to survive a limb shot , or a through and through shot to a non vital location but the chances of a vertical shot hitting the arm or leg are virtualy non existant.

Wish the same happened to all these Islamic groups that fire countless rounds into the air daily.. i'd pay to watch that..but anyway

poor kid
when i first saw the title i thought

"no way a sniper shot someone 3 miles away" clearly not the case thank god i'd be concerned for people if someone could do that.

brings a bit more worry into our lives that threat though

that's why whenever i fire assault rifles it's always into hard targets straight ahead like realistic dummies with blood and gore to highlight the impact to wooden moving targets. because you mistakenly might shoot someone miles away and never know.

reply to post by mamabeth

That is the same attitude that people have in corrupt courts of foreign
countries.Example:The american tourist who had a car accident in a
foreign country is automatically guilty.The reasoning behind this,if he
hadn't been in the country,there wouldn't have been an accident.

Sounds like very sound reasoning to me and karmic justice.

America has plenty of tourist destinations too you know and if the errant driver has not seen them all then he is favoring a foriegn economy over ours.

Had he come to Miami or the Grand Canyon or Hawaii they of course wouldn't have had that accident overseas.

Logic sure does escape some people.

I would hate to try to clarify what Proto was saying.

My interpretation of his comments is that he was being facetious. He was pointing out that anyone trying to blame the gun might as well blame the Church or the parents.

Proto is very lingual and you are supposed to see his point of view by THINKING.

You cannot blame the gun, you have to blame who is responsible, not an inanimate object like the gun.

Open your minds people to the obvious.

What do you want to outlaw next? Lightening? How about hurricanes?

I for one enjoyed his off kilter spiel. It was quite refreshing.

Again, I feel bad for the parents and kid. Blame the culprit, not the tool or circumstance!

edit to add-sorry proto, did not see your comment before posting mine.

[edit on 1/4/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by mamabeth

So,you feel the parents should be charged with a crime for taking the
boy to church?Good luck trying to get that one passed!

Absolutely I don't know how anyone can not see the negligence involved of taking a small child out late at night on a holiday where people are known to drink and drive and shoot guns into the air.

The parents were just as capable of praying at home, and its doubtful that a three year old reads hymnals and scriptures or can participate in an organized church ritual other than standing there...waiting for a bullet to fall on his head.

The parents were clearly wilfully wreckless and endangered their child.

The Church's roof likewise seems not to be up to code standards which probably has a lot to do with religions tax exempt status.

Very tragic that these negligent parties so irresponsibly endanger the life of a child.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Your sufficiency is putrified with preemptive environmental superfluity.

Ballistics or not, 3 miles away is more than ample time for the speed of the bullet to reduce drastically, not to mention the natural fall of the bullet. Even a .50 caliber sniper rifle drops 35 feet in one miles and a little bit after that the speed of the bullet is reduced by half. Unless this guy was using a military issued weapon, I believe we can assume that he wasn't using anything stronger than a .50 cal.

The fact that the bullet was already apparently descending in an arc means that it lost enough momentum to actually begin a descent, which means that the bullet was pretty much traveling at a 4th of its original speed. Counter in the wind resistence as the round is falling, the thickness of a the roof of the church, and it doesn't seem plausible, even if the bullet was still spinning.

You take your average hunting rifle and shoot it at a 2x4 beam and it will not go through from about 20 yards away, believe me, I've tried. Are you meaning to tell me that the roof of this church was not equal to, or greater than, the thickness of a 2x4 and that a FALLING bullet was able to penetrate it? Not only was it able to penetrate (both layers of a standard roof) but then it was able to penetrate a skull deep enough that these people didn't know what it was?


Not only would this building violate most building regulations, but it would have collapsed should any form of snowfall accumulate on the rooftop. This is assuming that the roof was made with anything less than standards. Its amazing that a lucky piece of hail didn't do the roof in already, killing all the unsuspecting church goers one morning.




It doesn't take mass science to look at this and see something wrong, it takes common sense and a basic understanding of gravity versus velocity.

reply to post by endisnighe

I would hate to try to clarify what Proto was saying.

My interpretation of his comments is that he was being facetious. He was pointing out that anyone trying to blame the gun might as well blame the Church or the parents.

Proto is very lingual and you are supposed to see his point of view by THINKING.

Thank you my friend, you have pretty much summed it up.

We as human beings tend to hold ourselves least responsible for our own plights in life.

It is always someone else’s fault when ever tragedy or happenstance leads to inconvenience or loss.

Someone else is naturally always to blame and the propensity then is to turn to government to regulate those things.

Government then seeks if it can profit off of the whole situation for its own sake. The people involved who all share a portion of the culpability then absolve themselves while laying the entire blame on just the party that appears most culpable that can then be exploited through fines, lawsuits, other fees and penalties that often lead to many other people having to pay for this that were in no way shape or form involved simply to placate the indignity and the lack of responsibility of some of the culpable parties.

Cause and effect is real.

If the parents had not taken their child to church that night on a holiday where drunk drivers are out and people are prone to shoot bullets into the air then the child would not have been struck by the bullet.

The parents could have just as easily prayed at home.

If the church had not been erected using cheap substandard materials and labor and enjoyed certain zoning, code and tax exemptions the bullet would not have penetrated the roof.

The church and at least some of its parishioners opted for a substandard structure and now a price is definitely being paid for that in blood.

The obvious is the reckless fool who is alleged to have shot the gun into the air. Yet it took all those other parties to turn it into a tragedy, parties who likewise FAILED to use common sense, and DARED to believe and now want to DEMAND that there be such guarantees that such things CAN’T HAPPEN.

Yet amazingly those very same parties that WANT their fellow HUMANS to GAURANTEE that such tragedies can not ever happen ABSOLVE their own G-D from GAURANTEEING that such things don’t HAPPEN. Which when one considers the presumed lesser powers and capabilities of humans over the presumed greater powers of the super natural clearly displays a vein wish and a foolish one, if their own deity won’t protect them from some mishaps and can’t, then how could humans?

Simple by using common sense, which not only did the shooter not do, but the parents also did not do taking the child out during what was not just a potentially dangerous time but a truly dangerous time. The church also did not use common sense by not just holding a service during a potential dangerous time that was in fact a dangerous time but by erecting a structure to flimsy to protect it’s congregants during dangerous times.

Everyone knows that bullets are shot into the air on New Years Eve and everyone knows that Drunk Drivers are out New Years Eve.

Want to tempt fate, be my guest but if you do and loose, be big enough to take personal responsibility for it.

Very simple.

There is a law that makes this illegal already.

Based on the evidence I have seen:

-Bullet went through the roof

-Bullet made a gaping wound

-Bullet fired from 3 miles away

The shot was surely fired at a retarded angle, like shooting at something in a tree.
I would say that it was not fired straight up.

It was certainly a rifle, probably at least .30 caliber. Most likely something powerful like a .308, .30-06 or .300 mag, but could have been something more powerful.

Who ever fired it would be found guilty of manslaughter and would be sentanced to a lengthy prison term if they were caught. It is really sad that people are so irresponsible.

[edit on 4-1-2010 by downtown436]

what a ridiculous assessemtn PT, verbosity in the extreme- just a freak occurrence, NUTTIN MAIR and NUTTIN LESS

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


What I find analogous to your point, are the robots in the Robot Series.

Or in the movie version(dumbed down version) of today, the I Robot movie.

One cannot have life without death.

And one can not have tragedy without experiences.

There are no guarantees in life, except death, oops, forgot taxes.

Keep up the writing dear sir. I no longer even need to go far, for my trips to literary genius.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
What a tragedy, only the good die young though.

Proof positive religion will not save you! Did the gun kill the boy or his parents dragging a three year old to church?

Cause and effect.

I'm not quite sure which is sadder. Your viewpoint that going to church killed this kid or the number of stars you received for saying it. Do you know how many kids are attacked, killed, kidnapped, etc. everyday each year simply going to school? By all means then, school must be equally as detrimental to kids' health.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


the parents irresponsibly taught the child the law of attraction and he wanted some bullets for his gun.

the answer to world overpopulation starts at home!


*i don't believe story is true and am kinda jaded.

Originally posted by lpowell0627

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
What a tragedy, only the good die young though.

Proof positive religion will not save you! Did the gun kill the boy or his parents dragging a three year old to church?

Cause and effect.

I'm not quite sure which is sadder. Your viewpoint that going to church killed this kid or the number of stars you received for saying it. Do you know how many kids are attacked, killed, kidnapped, etc. everyday each year simply going to school? By all means then, school must be equally as detrimental to kids' health.

I agree the educational system and the state of discipline at public schools as well as the curriculum are all appalling.

So to are the lack of interest by most parents in all of those things.

As a concerned parent I drove my children to school and picked them up, interacted with their teachers and the school administrators and personally confronted other problem students in the school so as to make sure those children understood that if they had a problem with one of my children they would have a problem with me.

Most people are all to happy to accept the substandard and to go along with the lowest possible common denominator. Most people are quick to point out the problems but slow to be part of the solution.

I am advocating something called personal responsibility. If the world is dealing you lemons don’t wait for the world to turn it into lemonade, seize the day, show some common sense and initiative and take matters into your own hands and abandon the victim dictum.

Before political correctness this is how America operated, free thinking people utilizing common sense and personal responsibility to get exemplary results.

It’s a simple message, be totally responsible for your self, and yours, and hold yourself responsible and accountable for it and you don’t need to run around dependent upon the rest of the world’s incompetency and failures.

I don’t think any of you get that complaining won’t bring this child back to life, nor will punishing anyone involved bring him back to life. The parents learning some common sense and some true personal responsibility might though ensure their next child lives to reach adulthood.

The parents endangered their child taking them out on a holiday late at night where it’s widely known that drunk drivers ply the roads and revelers shoot guns into the air.

That really was THEIR decision and they REALLY DID PAY A PRICE for it.

Pretending for the sake of someone’s feelings is what political correctness is all about.

Telling it like it is, that’s what COMMON SENSE is all about.