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

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

You were using it as a pretext to troll gene hunt. How the hell did Natty's drunken rage for 3 pages not get a suspension is beyond me.

you can call it that if you'd like, it's a free forum, yet my intent was to inform him that as natty was saying, there is no "ak-47 caliber"

it's like finding a 30-30 round and saying it's from a 30-06. while both are .30 caliber, it's too common a round to say with any certainty what rifle it came from without detailed analysis of the round to learn the twist ratio (which then would narrow down the potential rifles it came from).

[Nagishkaw 510]

0h dear. Natty, just face it. They don't understand. *wink wink*

[natty bumppo 297]

you can call it that if you'd like, it's a free forum, yet my intent was to inform him that as natty was saying, there is no "ak-47 caliber"

it's like finding a 30-30 round and saying it's from a 30-06. while both are .30 caliber, it's too common a round to say with any certainty what rifle it came from without detailed analysis of the round to learn the twist ratio (which then would narrow down the potential rifles it came from).

and ... to add more confusion.

a barrel can be replaced with one of a different rate of twist (non-OEM). so how do you know what type of rifle was really used?

Edited January 5, 2010 by Natty Bumppo

[Danno 1,228]

My primary point was.... this was a rare yet preventable death of a child, not unlike many others.

why does this story make the news cycle (and cause such emotion) and the many other similar deaths (by other means) don't?

Children die at the hands of stupid people all the time, talk to someone who works in the emergency room and hear the stories of "drunk father steps on infant" or the like.

They are mind boggling.

Perhaps this one is interesting in that.... it is so random... it's like the lottery in reverse. (expect one need not buy a ticket.)

[The_Dude 1,142]

you can call it that if you'd like, it's a free forum, yet my intent was to inform him that as natty was saying, there is no "ak-47 caliber"

it's like finding a 30-30 round and saying it's from a 30-06. while both are .30 caliber, it's too common a round to say with any certainty what rifle it came from without detailed analysis of the round to learn the twist ratio (which then would narrow down the potential rifles it came from).

You just don't get it charles. None of that really has any bearing on what was being discussed before natty stumbled in with his drunken attempts to ridicule. The caliber of the bullet that killed the child is immaterial. A bullet was ignorantly fired into the air and came down upon this childs head. Whatever caliber it was would not change the fact that the child is dead because of an irresponisble gun owner.

It's quite telling that of the entire article, you fixate on one sentence, nevermind the bit about the child dying, or the moron who ignorantly fired his weapon in the air. You can't seem to get past a quote from a purported expert who gave his opinion that may or may not have been paraphrasing.

[natty bumppo 297]

Whatever caliber it was would not change the fact that the child is dead because of an irresponisble gun owner.

how do you know the person firing the weapon ... actually owned it? assumption maybe?

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

You just don't get it charles. None of that really has any bearing on what was being discussed before natty stumbled in with his drunken attempts to ridicule. The caliber of the bullet that killed the child is immaterial. A bullet was ignorantly fired into the air and came down upon this childs head. Whatever caliber it was would not change the fact that the child is dead because of an irresponisble gun owner.

It's quite telling that of the entire article, you fixate on one sentence, nevermind the bit about the child dying, or the moron who ignorantly fired his weapon in the air. You can't seem to get past a quote from a purported expert who gave his opinion that may or may not have been paraphrasing.

i get that a kid is dead, that some idiot fired a rifle in the air, and some reporter was being stupid (and/or possibly advancing their own bias against guns) by putting that sentence in the article as it's misleading. whether you think that one sentence is important or not is a personal choice, just as i posting my thoughts about it are my choice.

Edited January 5, 2010 by charles!

[Danno 1,228]

You just don't get it charles. None of that really has any bearing on what was being discussed before natty stumbled in with his drunken attempts to ridicule. The caliber of the bullet that killed the child is immaterial. A bullet was ignorantly fired into the air and came down upon this childs head. Whatever caliber it was would not change the fact that the child is dead because of an irresponisble gun owner.

It's quite telling that of the entire article, you fixate on one sentence, nevermind the bit about the child dying, or the moron who ignorantly fired his weapon in the air. You can't seem to get past a quote from a purported expert who gave his opinion that may or may not have been paraphrasing.

I suspect if the news story did not throw out the "AK-47" banner several times, most would have taken it as was expected.

But I think many clearly saw the effort to use misinformation to fit a media template about guns.

[natty bumppo 297]

i get that a kid is dead, that some idiot fired a rifle in the air, and some reporter was being stupid (and/or possibly advancing their own bias against guns) by putting that sentence in the article as it's misleading. whether you think that one sentence is important or not is a personal choice, just as i posting my thoughts about it are my choice.

of course asking for honesty and facts in a news story is passe. sensationalism and emotion sells ....

[The_Dude 1,142]

i get that a kid is dead, that some idiot fired a rifle in the air, and some reporter was being stupid (and/or possibly advancing their own bias against guns) by putting that sentence in the article as it's misleading. whether you think that one sentence is important or not is a personal choice, just as i posting my thoughts about it are my choice.

I would be interested to see your reaction, and how this thread would have gone if that one single sentence was not included in the article. Would you still be arguing so vehemently? At the end of it, neither the bullet nor gun type matters. It is an irresponsible person using a gun in an illegal manner that could possibly have been prevented.

how do you know the person firing the weapon ... actually owned it? assumption maybe?

Resorting to arguing semantics now because your point is moot?

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

I would be interested to see your reaction, and how this thread would have gone if that one single sentence was not included in the article. Would you still be arguing so vehemently? At the end of it, neither the bullet nor gun type matters. It is an irresponsible person using a gun in an illegal manner that could possibly have been prevented.

if that sentence wasn't in there, i'd probably not have posted much of anything in this thread. satisfied now?

Edited January 5, 2010 by charles!

[nowhereman 1]

i get that a kid is dead, that some idiot fired a rifle in the air, and some reporter was being stupid (and/or possibly advancing their own bias against guns) by putting that sentence in the article as it's misleading. whether you think that one sentence is important or not is a personal choice, just as i posting my thoughts about it are my choice.

Charles your statement is dead on, but at the same time the introduction of the AK47 debate is a red herring IMO. Certain posters wanted to ridicule Gene Hunt & others for their alleged ignorance about firearms, but it came off to me as a silly inside joke for a group of individuals with similar political opinions (stating over & over that they "didn't get it"). I "get it" (having more than a layman's knowledge of firearms) & I still think these posters are being petty.

[natty bumppo 297]

I would be interested to see your reaction, and how this thread would have gone if that one single sentence was not included in the article. Would you still be arguing so vehemently? At the end of it, neither the bullet nor gun type matters. It is an irresponsible person using a gun in an illegal manner that could possibly have been prevented.

it was posted earlier about this type of behavior already is against the law. guess the laws forbidding this type of thing didn't do much good .....

semantics ... you assumed it was the owner of the gun. maybe in this case yes ... maybe no. to use a phrase "a person using/ firing/ discharging/ etc ... " would have been a better fit and would not have the connotation of "irresponsible gun owner" since you don't know the facts.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

Charles your statement is dead on, but at the same time the introduction of the AK47 debate is a red herring IMO. Certain posters wanted to ridicule Gene Hunt & others for their alleged ignorance about firearms, but it came off to me as a silly inside joke for a group of individuals with similar political opinions (stating over & over that they "didn't get it"). I "get it" (having more than a layman's knowledge of firearms) & I still think these posters are being petty.

i'm glad that you understood the details that we were trying to get across. maybe it's because i expect better standards of journalism than what is displayed by the writer of the op.

[The_Dude 1,142]

i'm glad that you understood the details that we were trying to get across. maybe it's because i expect better standards of journalism than what is displayed by the writer of the op.

To be fair to the author of the article, he was quoting the expert that the state of georgia uses in those situations for many years..... Would it have really made any difference to the story had he said it was a 30-30 and not an AK-47? The end result remains the same, and the focus going forward remains the same. Let me be perfectly clear here for people like Natty, i'm not suggesting that gun owners be rounded up and stripped of their arms. But obviously, people who are ignorant enough to calously fire a weapon into the air either should not be allowed to posses a gun, or at a minimum should be required to get training to learn why they shouldn't. This is just broad strokes here, I don't have any plan, or even idea as to how you identify these tards. But it should be at least explored.