4 Year Old Boy killed New Year's Eve by Rifle Shot in Air

[Kathryn41 3,205]

My personal opinon: People with the 'stupid ' gene shouldn't be allowed access to firearms.

http://www.ajc.com/news/dekalb/boy-most-li...hot-264997.html

Boy most likely shot by a rifle fired into the air

By Rhonda Cook

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

The 4-year-old boy shot and killed while in church, apparently by New Year’s Eve revelers, most likely was

hit by a bullet fired from a rifle, said a firearms expert Saturday.

Four-year-old Marquel Peters was killed by a stray bullet during a New Year’s Eve service at his DeKalb church.

“I would suspect this was a rifle. An AK-47. That’s the most prolific [weapon found] downtown,” said Kelly

Fite, who was the top ballistics expert with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation’s state Crime Lab for almost four decades.

The circumstances that led to young Marquel Peters’ death are not uncommon on New Year’s Eve.

“It’s not impossible at all” for a bullet to travel some distance then pass through a roof and kill someone

inside a building, Fite said.

“This is New Year’s Eve and people are out shooting their guns,” Fite said.

The boy, playing with a video game, and his mother were waiting for a 12:30 a.m. concert to begin at

Church of God of Prophecy near Decatur when Marquel was shot in the head by a stray bullet. Marquel was on the floor, crying and bleeding, when medics arrived, but he died later at Children's Healthcare of Atlanta at Egleston.

The child’s family has called for the person who fired the shot to come forward, but Fite said it’s unlikely

that person even knows what happened. And police are unlikely to find the shooter unless the bullet is traced to a gun recovered in another investigation, Fite said.

The shooter could have been as much as two to three miles away, Fite told The Atlanta

Journal-Constitution. But most likely, the shooter was about a half mile away and the gun was tilted at about 30 or 40 degrees, not straight up, he said.

“This bullet that hit this kid was not shot straight up because it would have come down near the shooter,”

Fite said.

Investigators discovered Friday the bullet had passed through the roof of the church.

It’s not uncommon – though illegal -- for guns to be fired to mark the start of a new year.

-- In 2005, stray bullets hit two people at different locations in downtown Atlanta on New Year's Eve. Aimee

Buff from Hampton and her fiance were celebrating her 27th birthday at Underground Atlanta's Peach Drop when she was wounded. A bullet hit Buff in the ear and became lodged about two inches from her spine.

-- A few blocks away, Merritt Tidwell, a University of Georgia freshman from Douglasville, was struck below

her right knee by a bullet that pierced the roof of the Georgia Dome, where she was watching the the 2005 Peach Bowl .

-- In 2004, 86-year-old Dorothy Young of Atlanta was wounded in the arm as she was leaving a New Year's

Eve church service in Bankhead.

-- A fan at the 2001 Peach Bowl was grazed by a stray bullet that came through the roof of the Georgia

Dome.

-- In 2000, Crystal Garrett, a college student from Easley, S.C., was hit by a stray bullet moments after

she watched the Peach Drop at Underground Atlanta.

And in the summer of 1996, a National Guardsman providing security for the Olympics was hit in the chest by a bullet believed

to have been fired from an AK-47 into the air. Sgt. Thomas Bentley, 43, of Monroe, was among three standing guard on the Georgia Tech when he was wounded

Edited January 3, 2010 by Kathryn41

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Happy fvckin new year

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The good news is that once you isolate the STUPID gene, we can prevent them from voting also.

Since you cannot isolate the stupid gene, you would be satisfied to just ban all firearms, right?

[Nagishkaw 510]

It's sad either way you want to look at it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

No - banning firearms won't work. America is too big, there are too many guns out there and the gun lobby too well entrenched.

You guys are fvcked. But at least you have the second amendment.

Result.

If my sarcasm isn't clear enough, I can make it clearer.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

The good news is that once you isolate the STUPID gene, we can prevent them from voting also.

Since you cannot isolate the stupid gene, you would be satisfied to just ban all firearms, right?

Actually, no. I have no problems with people having firearms as long as they are responsible in their use, know how to use them properly and look after them properly - for example, storing them safely away from where children can get access, not 'showing off' with it as if a gun makes them important, and is concerned about how to prevent the use of guns in the commission of crimes - either their own guns, or others' guns. I fully support a registration of firearms and mandatory training for all those who wish to use firearms - along with identifying individuals who psychologically indicate they are not capable of behaving responsibly with a firearm.

As a historic re-enactor for years I had my own flintlock musket that I used in battle re-creations and did some live firing with. As a Museum Curator for many years I had the responsibility for the care and protection of a wide variety of firearms - including prohibited and restricted firearms under Canadian legislation. I made sure I had the proper training to do my job responsibly, and maintained both the well-being of the records and the weapons responsibly.

The issue is one of responsibility. It is sad that sometimes responsibility needs to be mandated. We have licenses and training to drive cars; I believe that firearms should be handled the same way.

Edited January 3, 2010 by Kathryn41

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Actually, no. I have no problems with people having firearms as long as they are responsible in their use, know how to use them properly and look after them properly - for example, storing them safely away from where children can get access, not 'showing off' with it as if a gun makes them important, and is concerned about how to prevent the use of guns in the commission of crimes - either their own guns, or others' guns. I fully support a registration of firearms and mandatory training for all those who wish to use firearms - along with identifying individuals who psychologically indicate they are not capable of behaving responsibly with a firearm.

As a historic re-enactor for years I had my own flintlock musket that I used in battle re-creations and did some live firing with. As a Museum Curator for many years I had the responsibility for the care and protection of a wide variety of firearms - including prohibited and restricted firearms under Canadian legislation. I made sure I had the proper training to do my job responsibly, and maintained both the well-being of the records and the weapons responsibly.

The issue is one of responsibility. It is sad that sometimes responsibility needs to be mandated. We have licenses and training to drive cars; I believe that firearms should be handled the same way.

I agree with you 100% that firearms should be treated exactly the same way.

We do not need lisenceing or training or any particular age to BUY and OWN a car. A 3 year old can buy a car for cash and keep it in their own garage. We only need training and lisencing when we operate our private car on public property. My sons were driving on the family's private ranch roads when they 10 years old...no legal problems, it is private property we can do what we want. So for owning a firearm and keeping it in your home you would agree we do not need training and lisences...correct? No age limit, no restrictions whatsoever to buy and own a firearm on your own property. No background checks. For carrying your firearm concealed on public property in most states we have lisencing and training requirements, but your statement also indicates you would agree...

1. Anyone age 16 or older should be able to carry a concealed weapon with a license?

2. Persons over age 16 should be able to bring their concealed firearms to school?

3. The lisence is valid and MUST be recognized in all 50 states AND Canada (just like drivers lisences)?

4. each state can make its own rules regarding the level of training required, qualifications for residency etc., just like drivers lisences and ALL 50 states and Canada must accept concealed carry by lisenced individuals?

You see? This is what you want, right?

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

The issue is one of responsibility. It is sad that sometimes responsibility needs to be mandated. We have licenses and training to drive cars; I believe that firearms should be handled the same way.

driving a car isn't a right in the constitution. owning firearms is, and licensing a constitutionally guaranteed right is......well, defeating the purpose of it being a right.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

right to assembly isn't unrestricted either.. you often do have to get permits.

and that's first amendment, not a sorry second

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Not the first time. Idjits are relentless.

Denver police: Don't shoot your guns in the air on New Year's Eve

Associated Press

Posted: 12/31/2009 10:34:16 AM MST

DENVER — Police in Denver are warning people not to fire guns to celebrate the New Year.

Police say people are injured or killed by careless gun fire every year across the country on New Year's Eve.

Early on New Year's Day in Denver two years ago, 11-year-old Angelica Martinez of Denver and her 47-year-old aunt, Rebecca Yanez of Fort Collins, were killed when a single bullet tore through a wall and struck them.

The shooter, Pedro Cortez, said he was aiming at a streetlight.

He pleaded guilty to two counts of manslaughter and was sentenced to 20 years in prison earlier this year.

Posted on Thu, Dec. 31, 2009

Activists, police warn against firing guns to celebrate New Year

BY HERALD STAFF

dadenews@MiamiHerald.com

Assistant City of Miami Police Chief Richard Blom urges the community not to shoot of guns at the stroke of midnight, claiming that people get killed when the bullet comes down possibly striking someone, as a press conference is held in Liberty City about the dangers of gunfire. Community activists and top city of Miami police officials called on local residents Thursday to welcome the new year in a peaceful way and refrain from using guns to celebrate the first minutes of 2010.

"As 2009 leaves us and 2010 comes in, we are here again urging our community to not celebrate the new year with celebratory gunfire,'' Miami-Dade Commissioner Audrey Edmonson said at a news conference Wednesday morning in Overtown.

The Rev. Jerome Starling, who has spearheaded the annual New Year's Eve campaign, said he is trying to raise awareness of the dangers of firing guns in the air and encourage those who witness someone firing their gun to contact police.

"Guns are not the answer,'' he said. ``Please do not shoot. Just don't shoot. Just don't fire.''

The issue of gun violence is a personal one for Starling. His 5-year-old niece, Rickia Isaac, was killed by a stray bullet to the forehead in 1997 -- while walking home from a Miami parade honoring Martin Luther King Jr.

Flanked by more than a dozen police officers from several law enforcement agencies, Miami police Maj. Roy Brown said firing a gun to mark the beginning of the new year is ``ridiculous and stupid.''

He recounted several shooting incidents from the past to show the dangers of such behavior.

In 2008, celebratory gunshots took the life of 11-year-old Joshua Arroliga. The Opa-locka boy was playing hide-and-seek next to a discarded sofa at his apartment building when one of his neighbors emptied a 9mm Glock's magazine into the furniture -- not realizing Joshua was hiding behind it.

A year earlier, New Year's stray bullets took the life of two South Floridians -- Corey Baker, a 35-year-old father of five in Miami, and Audley Ebanks, 69, of Plantation.

Miami is not alone in its public awareness efforts to stop gunfire on New Year's Eve.

Major cities across the country now annually plead with the public not to shoot in the air.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives warns that those convicted of firing weapons into the air can face felony charges if the individual is prohibited from possessing a firearm.

They caution that bullets shot into the air can climb up two miles and then fall at a rate of 300 to 700 feet per second, killing or injuring those that are struck.

Edited January 4, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

right to assembly isn't unrestricted either.. you often do have to get permits.

and that's first amendment, not a sorry second

often....not always. around here you can assemble all you want. plenty of pasture space.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

often....not always. around here you can assemble all you want. plenty of pasture space.

right, often.

how about we permit guns "often" but not always? like limit the permits to those without evidence of prior expeirence or training?

[Danno 1,228]

My personal opinon: People with the 'stupid ' gene shouldn't be allowed access to firearms.

The level of stupidity of some people would be comical if not for the random harm they cause to others.

Atlanta has well over a HAlf million people in the city its self, if we are alarmed at this one tragic incident, perhaps a little time spent in the emergency room would give us perspective.

However it would be neat if we could administer a "stupid gene" test to eliminate such things.... but this test would also need to have a "Acts on impulsive" element to as this I suspect THAT is the greater source of this kind of stuff.

I was imaging some other things we might have to disallow access too.

Alcohol

Gasoline engins

Shitty cars that are "tricked out."

ladders

fire

[Kathryn41 3,205]

I agree with you 100% that firearms should be treated exactly the same way.

We do not need lisenceing or training or any particular age to BUY and OWN a car. A 3 year old can buy a car for cash and keep it in their own garage. We only need training and lisencing when we operate our private car on public property. My sons were driving on the family's private ranch roads when they 10 years old...no legal problems, it is private property we can do what we want. So for owning a firearm and keeping it in your home you would agree we do not need training and lisences...correct? No age limit, no restrictions whatsoever to buy and own a firearm on your own property. No background checks. For carrying your firearm concealed on public property in most states we have lisencing and training requirements, but your statement also indicates you would agree...

1. Anyone age 16 or older should be able to carry a concealed weapon with a license?

2. Persons over age 16 should be able to bring their concealed firearms to school?

3. The lisence is valid and MUST be recognized in all 50 states AND Canada (just like drivers lisences)?

4. each state can make its own rules regarding the level of training required, qualifications for residency etc., just like drivers lisences and ALL 50 states and Canada must accept concealed carry by lisenced individuals?

You see? This is what you want, right?

Semantics, GaryandAlla, You are twisting my words.

If someone is intending only to have a firearm on their own property then why would they worry about being allowed to carry a concealed weapon off of their property? Why would there be such a fuss being made about being allowed to have firearms in public places, schools, businesses, city streets? You are introducing irrelevant material meant to distract from the real issue. Regardless, to address your statements so we are clear on what I believe:

You should have proper training and licensing to own and operate a firearm whether it is on your own property or anywhere else. The projectile has the probable potential of leaving your property - as illustrated in the above article about the 4 year old child killed when a firearm was shot into the air - so stating you are using it only on your own property does not exempt you from the responsibility of proper training and licensing. As there is also the potential of someone taking your firearm off of your property without your permission, it behooves you to have it properly licensed as well, if only to prove your legal ownership.

There should be a minimum age where someone can be expected to understand and accept the responsibility of making the correct decisions that come up when owning a firearm. The various ages of 16, 18, 19 and 21 are in existence for other aspects of social and legal responsibility.

I personally do not see the need for a private citizen to carry a concealed weapon at any age. It seems to me that only criminals would want to 'hide' the fact that they are carrying a firearm so they can take advantage of that unawareness in the commission of a crime.

The license is issued when the applicant has successfully fulfilled the testing requirements to show he/she knows how to operate and safely maintain, store, and transport a firearm. Future evidence of failure in any of these areas can lead to a license revocation.

The US makes laws for the US. It has no jurisdiction over Canada. For the record, Canada currently does recognize licensed firearms users into Canada but they need to satisfy additional requirements - eg correct permits to carry, prove safe storage, meet the even stricter requirements for the restricted/prohibited classes of firearms, etc.

The States need to negotiate with each other if they will accept the standards practiced in other states. Ideally, there would be a uniform standard accepted across the Country.

If you wish to see what I support without me going into very lengthy discourses you can check the Canadian Firearms Safety Legislation. I fully support the process as it currently applies in Canada. http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/index-eng.htm

Edited January 4, 2010 by Kathryn41

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

right, often.

how about we permit guns "often" but not always? like limit the permits to those without evidence of prior expeirence or training?

there is no permit for owning a firearm..........