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

[nowhereman 1]

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 article seemed OK to me, minus the one sentence about speculating that the round came from an AK47. To me the story was that a young boy was dead due to the negligence of another person... the one liner about the AK47 didn't justify several pages of a pissing contest.

[The_Dude 1,142]

The article seemed OK to me, minus the one sentence about speculating that the round came from an AK47. To me the story was that a young boy was dead due to the negligence of another person... the one liner about the AK47 didn't justify several pages of a pissing contest.

I think someone having too much to drink justfied that

[natty bumppo 297]

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.

the state of georgia needs a new "expert" and the writer needs to do a little more research before publishing trash. there again ... how many people would recognize/ understand this level of irresponsible reporting,

btw ... how would the "expert" be able to determine the bullet came from a 30-30?

[Ban Hammer 13,644]

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.

i know who was quoted, and i thought the comment on that person's part needed to be questioned - even if they'd said a 30-30 round. and the reporter should have done further research before including that.

as for shooting any firearm in the air, it's obvious to most that the bullet will come back down - somewhere. agreed on the part about anyone ignorant or callous enough to just fire one off into the air without carefully considering where the bullet may fall.

i'm not sure how to identify those who would be prone to do this, but i'm suspecting alcohol plays a part.

The article seemed OK to me, minus the one sentence about speculating that the round came from an AK47. To me the story was that a young boy was dead due to the negligence of another person... the one liner about the AK47 didn't justify several pages of a pissing contest.

i'd not characterize it as negligence, but willful stupidity on the part of the one firing the rifle.

[natty bumppo 297]

I think someone having too much to drink justfied that

there the expert has an AD with assumptions again ....

could be that pointing out a poorly written article taxes some people's reasoning skills ....

[nowhereman 1]

i'd not characterize it as negligence, but willful stupidity on the part of the one firing the rifle.

Six one way, half a dozen the other. If the person who fired the round is ever found I imagine they would be charged with criminally negligent homicide.

there the expert has an AD with assumptions again ....

could be that pointing out a poorly written article taxes some people's reasoning skills ....

Dude just admit you got carried away after a few too many drinks & made a mountain out of a mole hill. Been there, done that.

[natty bumppo 297]

Six one way, half a dozen the other. If the person who fired the round is ever found I imagine they would be charged with criminally negligent homicide.

Dude just admit you got carried away after a few too many drinks & made a mountain out of a mole hill. Been there, done that.

nice deflection that has nothing to do with a dead child or shabby reporting .....

guess it's okay to admit you "know" what type of rifle was used without seeing it. sorta like knowing the type of knife used to cut a vegetable (paring/chefs/slicer or forged/stamped) without seeing the knife

Edited January 5, 2010 by Natty Bumppo

[The_Dude 1,142]

nice deflection ... guess it's okay to admit you "know" what type of rifle was used without seeing it. sorta like knowing the type of knife used to cut a vegetable (paring/chefs/slicer or forged/stamped) without seeing the knife

You still don't want to let this red herring go yet natty? Come on, pull up your line and move on.

[natty bumppo 297]

You still don't want to let this red herring go yet natty? Come on, pull up your line and move on.

I've moved on ... long ago ...this fishin hole is dry ...

Edited January 5, 2010 by Natty Bumppo

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Just to add a 'face' to this story . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-7FyA6oDKU...player_embedded

[natty bumppo 297]

Just to add a 'face' to this story . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-7FyA6oDKU...player_embedded

I also want to see the face of the idiot who fired the shot ... behind bars.

Edited January 5, 2010 by Natty Bumppo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

Yeah as if the gun used actually matters to what was being discussed. Its called not being able to see the wood for the trees.

Amazing natty didn't get suspended given the number of times he called me an "azzhole" or "azzhat".

And to think all I asked him was "what difference does that make?". And he still couldn't/wouldn't answer it.

[Ban Hammer 13,644]

Yeah as if the gun used actually matters to what was being discussed. Its called not being able to see the wood for the trees.

Amazing natty didn't get suspended given the number of times he called me an "azzhole" or "azzhat".

And to think all I asked him was "what difference does that make?". And he still couldn't/wouldn't answer it.

1 - it's the forest for the trees. i'd rather not know if natty is seeing wood.

2 - how do you know if he was suspended or not?

3 - while the difference may seem miniscule to you, it's obvious to us gun owners, so don't be surprised if we point it out.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Nice to see irrelevance continues unabated. In 3 points no less.

But seriously, noone have a ####### about the gun. It was only Natty who brought it up. I merely asked why it was important and got called an azzhole for my trouble.

I get the guy was speculating about the gun, I just don't see why it has relevance. Especially given the claim that the piece was somehow hysterical.

[Ban Hammer 13,644]

Nice to see irrelevance continues unabated. In 3 points no less.

But seriously, noone have a ####### about the gun. It was only Natty who brought it up. I merely asked why it was important and got called an azzhole for my trouble.

I get the guy was speculating about the gun, I just don't see why it has relevance. Especially given the claim that the piece was somehow hysterical.

if it was really irrelevant, you'd not have commented on it.

as to why it was important, i answered that, only to be told i was baiting. i'm sure if someone mangled some specific fact that involved english history, you'd be on that too in order to set the record straight.