Did a Stray Bullet on New Year's Eve Kill a Child at Church in Atlanta?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kote
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gun
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the tragic incident where a four-year-old boy was killed by a falling bullet during a New Year's Eve mass in Atlanta, highlighting the dangers of celebratory gunfire. Participants express outrage over the irresponsible act of firing guns into populated areas, emphasizing that bullets can cause fatal injuries even when falling from a height. The conversation delves into the physics of bullets, discussing terminal velocity and the potential lethality of bullets fired at angles versus straight up. Some participants reference a Mythbusters episode, which concluded that bullets fired straight up are not lethal due to tumbling, while acknowledging that bullets fired at angles can retain significant velocity and pose a danger. The thread underscores the need for awareness regarding the consequences of celebratory gunfire, with statistics indicating that such incidents are not uncommon, particularly in regions where this practice is prevalent. The overarching sentiment is a call for accountability and a reminder of the serious risks associated with negligent gun use.
kote
Messages
867
Reaction score
4
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Say what you like about God - at least he has a fun sense of humor.
 
mgb_phys said:
Say what you like about God - at least he has a fun sense of humor.
Oh man. So do you.
 
This is always grim news, and it happens every year. I am so very sorry for the family who grieves for this child.
 
Absolute idiocy, you don't fire weapons for fun in populated areas. I hope they find the person that was shooting.
 
I thought God would be blamed for this :)
 
Evo said:
Absolute idiocy, you don't fire weapons for fun in populated areas. I hope they find the person that was shooting.

You don't fire a weapon ANYWHERE when you don't know where you're aiming the bullet.
 
kote said:
Remember that conversation in PF chat about people shooting guns on New Year's Eve? A falling bullet from one of those shots fell through the roof of a church and killed a four year old boy at mass in Atlanta.
Wow.

http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/Stray-Bullet-Kills-4-year-old-Boy-010110

Is that really possible? Sounds a bit like dropping pennies from Empire State Building...
What is the terminal velocity of a bullet?
 
Debris came down from the ceiling, but I would expect that the bullets were fired in the direction of the church, and not necessarily coming down, although perhaps it's possible. Terminal velocity depends on drag, but perhaps it's 200 mph or more - depending on original angle.
 
  • #10
Terminal velocity is depending mostly on two things. 1. The density of the thing that is falling. 2. The shape of the thing that is falling. Bullets are very dense (usually lead), and they have a shape to allow relatively low friction. The terminal velocity of a bullet could be 300 or 400 feet per second. This could be about 300 miles per hour.

And yes, that is a deadly force.
 
  • #11
Seems you are right. A quick google search came up with a few relevant hits (including an old thread on this forum).
Apparantly there are also other confirmed cases where a falling bullet has killed someone.
 
  • #12
so here's another stereotype that's really true! :biggrin:
 
  • #13
That's why well-informed idiots only fire shotguns into the air. Shotgun pellets coming down pose no danger, which is why [in part] they are used to hunt birds; not to mention that a bird is pretty tough to hit with a bullet. :biggrin:
 
  • #14
Ivan Seeking said:
That's why well-informed idiots ...

:smile:

As for the rest of the story, I think the only thing forum guidelines will allow me to say regarding what I'm thinking is that it's a rather cruel irony.
 
  • #15
hypatia said:
Terminal velocity is depending mostly on two things. 1. The density of the thing that is falling. 2. The shape of the thing that is falling. Bullets are very dense (usually lead), and they have a shape to allow relatively low friction. The terminal velocity of a bullet could be 300 or 400 feet per second. This could be about 300 miles per hour.

And yes, that is a deadly force.
But to break through a roof and a skull it has to have some mass. The story doesn't say the bullet came straight down from the sky, it could have been fired directly at the church, since the roof is slanted and could have ricocheted downward.
 
  • #16
We're talking about a a small child's soft skull, and he didn't die instantly. The accounts I heard made it sound like they were sure it was a falling bullet and wasn't coming from any discernible direction.

I suppose I should have guessed that the physics would be questioned. *sigh*
 
  • #18
It wouldn't have to penetrate the skull to be lethal. Just fracturing the skull in the right place will do it, and as kote points out, that's not so hard when it's only a 4-year-old. Just the debris falling from a ceiling could cause a lethal injury hitting a 4-year-old in the head (or even an adult, depending on the size of the debris and height of the ceiling and where it hits).
 
  • #19
It sadly shows that we need to do more than exercise gun rights, we need to prevent gun wrongs.

Brad, a young boy I knew, had a brother who got a .22 for Christmas many years ago. He pointed it at Brad and playfully pulled the trigger. The bullet pierced Brad's heart.

Apparently the gun dealer wanted to do a favor to the father by loading the gun with bullets as a "surprise." Brad's family did not pursue him legally.

Brad's brother must be permanently scarred.
 
  • #20
diazona said:
They did this on Mythbusters once...
http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/04/episode_50_bullets_fired_up_vo.html
On the show they reported finding several confirmed cases as well (even though their own experiments were inconclusive).
How can a confirmed case supersede a controlled experiment? If they test it and it proves to be a myth, then there's something fishy about the "confirmed cases". That's taking anecdotal evidence and eyewitness testimony over a scientific experiment. If you disregard the scientific experiment, you're saying there's something flawed with the experiment. And why would you say there's something flawed with the experiment before you say there's something flawed with the "confirmed cases"?
 
  • #21
leroyjenkens said:
How can a confirmed case supersede a controlled experiment? If they test it and it proves to be a myth, then there's something fishy about the "confirmed cases". That's taking anecdotal evidence and eyewitness testimony over a scientific experiment. If you disregard the scientific experiment, you're saying there's something flawed with the experiment. And why would you say there's something flawed with the experiment before you say there's something flawed with the "confirmed cases"?

Mythbusters' inability to create the exact circumstances of a known event does not falsify the known event. No experiment can "prove" it did not happen.

And, while I love the show, I am leery of concurring that they can be called "scientific experiments". Certainly, I won't be questioning too many police reports based on a Mythbuster's ep.
 
  • #22
Mythbusters' inability to create the exact circumstances of a known event does not falsify the known event.
What was flawed about their experiment?

And it's a "known event" how? How do we KNOW?
No experiment can "prove" it did not happen.
No experiment can "prove" I didn't just get visited by a dragon.
And, while I love the show, I am leery of concurring that they can be called "scientific experiments". Certainly, I won't be questioning too many police reports based on a Mythbuster's ep.
Their experiments are based more on science than police reports, which are based on a number of different things, including eyewitness testimony.
 
  • #23
leroyjenkens said:
What was flawed about their experiment?
I didn't say anything was flawed about it. But no experiment can factor in every variable. The precise angle, the precise impact point, the exact thickness and bone-density of that victim's skull, the exact cause of death (how do you prove a crash-terst dummy did NOT die of ruptured blood vessel). The variables are endless. Their experiment would have to test every conceivable variable and show that all of them failed.

Again, all their experimenting cannot falsify an event. The best they can do is call it implausible.
 
  • #24
leroyjenkens said:
What was flawed about their experiment?
How do you disprove the occurence of freak accident happening?

And it's a "known event" how? How do we KNOW?
In the case of the OP? You doubt it happened?
 
  • #25
leroyjenkens said:
What was flawed about their experiment?.
They assumed a literal terminal velocity, ie a round fired vertically upward that reached a maximum height (zero veolcity) and came straight down.
Imagine you fired a round at 45deg it would have a much higher velocity when it hit the unfortunate target.
 
  • #26
I didn't say anything was flawed about it. But no experiment can factor in every variable. The precise angle, the precise impact point, the exact thickness and bone-density of that victim's skull, the exact cause of death (how do you prove a crash-terst dummy did NOT die of ruptured blood vessel). The variables are endless. Their experiment would have to test every conceivable variable and show that all of them failed.

Again, all their experimenting cannot falsify an event. The best they can do is call it implausible.
You're right. But there's also a lot of variables in the "confirmed" cases. The best you can do is call them plausible. They don't know the bullets hit the people with only the force of gravity, which is what the myth is.
How do you disprove the occurence of freak accident happening?
You can disprove the details of the freak accident. We know the boy was killed by a bullet coming through the roof. That's not what you disprove. You disprove that the force of the bullet was completely gravity.
But the link doesn't say that the bullet went straight up and straight down, neither does the video.
In the case of the OP? You doubt it happened?
The "known event", I assume, was referring to people being killed by falling bullets. We don't know the only force on the bullet was gravity.
They assumed a literal terminal velocity, ie a round fired vertically upward that reached a maximum height (zero veolcity) and came straight down.
Imagine you fired a round at 45deg it would have a much higher velocity when it hit the unfortunate target.
You're right. That's what I think happened to the church boy. But the myth is that a bullet solely under the force of gravity could kill someone, which is what they tested. Just like the penny experiment they did.
But of course, people can die from anything. If they have a piece of skull that's missing from their head and the bullet falls through the hole, or it hits them in the eye, it could kill them.
You can't say for sure that anything won't kill somebody. But just like people have life threatening allergies to peanuts, you can't say that you shouldn't eat peanuts because they're deadly.
 
  • #27
From the link posted by diazona:
G Mohler, told them about a case in Menlo Park where a woman sitting in a lawn chair was struck in the leg by a bullet that was fired into the air 1 1/2 miles away during a 4th of July celebration. Mohler recovered the bullet from her leg and the police were able to match the ballistics to a shooter.

Mohler also told them about a case of an elderly man in Alameda who was talking to his wife underneath a plastic corrugated roof in his carport. His eyes rolled up and his wife thought he was having a stroke. When they got to the hospital they found out there was a bullet in his brain and, unfortunately, he died.
They figured out what was different from their original assumptions: the bullets in Dr. Mohler's cases weren't fired straight up into the air. They were fired at an angle, which meant that they remained spin-stabilized and on a ballistics trajectory.
For the first time ever, they deemed this one busted, plausible, and confirmed. All of their tests, from the pig's head to the 9mm firing to the balloon, showed that a bullet fired perfectly straight up into the air is not lethal. However, it is also very difficult to shoot perfectly straight up into the air and, with the cases cited by Dr. Mohler, they have confirmed that people have died from bullets falling from the sky.
 
  • #28
It is possible.

If the gun is pointed straight up, the total magnitude of the velocity vector upon impact will be the terminal velocity.

But, seeing as nobody was hanging onto a steeple and shooting up into the air from the top of the church, it is obvious that the gun was not pointed straight up, but at an angle.

when a bullet is pointed at even a tiny angle from vertical, there will be a small amount of the initial velocity vector going into the horizontal, and the horizontal velocity vector is for the most part, conserved. therefore it is not gravity that kills people when bullets fall, but the actual horizontal component of the intitial velocity vector.
 
  • #29
Even if the bullet was fired straight up, it can still return with enough velocity to wound or kill you. According to retired general JS Hatcher's book on ballistics, the velocity of a returning bullet varies a lot but in general the velocity is greater than 200 fps.
 
  • #30
I guy I work with doing ironwork dropped a 3/4-inch nut. It some poor guy about 120 ft or so below us and shattered his wrist. If a large caliber bullet fell from several hundred feet, it could do a fair amount of damage.
 
  • #31
Astronuc said:
I guy I work with doing ironwork dropped a 3/4-inch nut. It some poor guy about 120 ft or so below us and shattered his wrist. If a large caliber bullet fell from several hundred feet, it could do a fair amount of damage.
And if you shoot a bullet straight up, it could easily be returning from 1/2 mile altitude or more. Not good.
 
  • #32
But, seeing as nobody was hanging onto a steeple and shooting up into the air from the top of the church, it is obvious that the gun was not pointed straight up, but at an angle.

when a bullet is pointed at even a tiny angle from vertical, there will be a small amount of the initial velocity vector going into the horizontal, and the horizontal velocity vector is for the most part, conserved. therefore it is not gravity that kills people when bullets fall, but the actual horizontal component of the intitial velocity vector.
Eventually the bullet will lose all the energy provided by the gun and on the way down will start falling straight down, therefore all the energy will be provided by gravity. Like if you throw a penny off a tall building, it doesn't just keep traveling further and further out from the building, it will quickly start dropping straight down.
 
  • #33
This has really gone off topic. The OP was about the tradgedy of the negligent use of guns.

Lets return to the topic or I will lock the thread.
 
  • #34
<<<<<<<<<<<<I have a four-year-old.

I will be keeping him away from all churches after this!
 
  • #35
Evo said:
This has really gone off topic. The OP was about the tradgedy of the negligent use of guns.

I disagree. I do not the share the same interpretation of the OP. This case is unique from all other gun accidents.
 
  • #36
rootX said:
I disagree. I do not the share the same interpretation of the OP. This case is unique from all other gun accidents.
This happens every year. It's not unique, unfortunately. And it's not just bullets falling, it's people randomly firing. Idiots!

To quote Moonbear.
Moonbear said:
You don't fire a weapon ANYWHERE when you don't know where you're aiming the bullet.

Irresponsible use of a deadly weapon is inexcusable, and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
 
  • #37
This happens every year. It's not unique, unfortunately. And it's not just bullets falling, it's people randomly firing. Idiots!
A falling bullet killing someone happens every year? It has to be a little unique if it's a subject on Mythbusters.
 
  • #38
leroyjenkens said:
A falling bullet killing someone happens every year? It has to be a little unique if it's a subject on Mythbusters.

I think Evo was pretty clear in saying that people firing off guns randomly is what happens every year.
 
  • #39
leroyjenkens said:
A falling bullet killing someone happens every year? It has to be a little unique if it's a subject on Mythbusters.
Not really. The whole point of getting into the physics and ballistics was to convince the unbelievers that firing bullets into the air is NOT harmless fun. It's a whole lot more common in some middle-eastern societies in which firing guns in celebration of holidays, weddings, and other ceremonies is more common. People die every year from such recklessness. Failure to acknowledge that or to attribute the "accident" to sheer chance misses the point entirely.
 
  • #40
I think Evo was pretty clear in saying that people firing off guns randomly is what happens every year.
rootX said this case was unique from all other gun accidents, which is the case of a kid being killed from a falling bullet. Evo said it's not unique. The kid being killed from a falling bullet is what the accident is that rootX was referring to.
Not really. The whole point of getting into the physics and ballistics was to convince the unbelievers that firing bullets into the air is NOT harmless fun. It's a whole lot more common in some middle-eastern societies in which firing guns in celebration of holidays, weddings, and other ceremonies is more common. People die every year from such recklessness. Failure to acknowledge that or to attribute the "accident" to sheer chance misses the point entirely.
You're saying the reason Mythbusters had the falling bullets as a subject on Mythbusters was to prove that it's not harmless fun? Well they sort of failed on that point, since their experiments indicated that it wouldn't kill a person.

What point am I missing?
 
  • #41
leroyjenkens said:
You're saying the reason Mythbusters had the falling bullets as a subject on Mythbusters was to prove that it's not harmless fun? Well they sort of failed on that point, since their experiments indicated that it wouldn't kill a person.

What point am I missing?
The point is that firing guns into the air can result in bullets returning to Earth with sufficient velocity to kill people. This is not a urban legend. It is real, and it is provable by classical physics. There is no reason to haul in a TV show to "prove" your point. Physics trumps entertainment.
 
  • #42
leroyjenkens said:
rootX said this case was unique from all other gun accidents, which is the case of a kid being killed from a falling bullet. Evo said it's not unique. The kid being killed from a falling bullet is what the accident is that rootX was referring to.
Regardless, Evo qualified her claim.

While the specific instance RootX is referring to doesn't happen all the time, one can deduce that Evo finds that too specious a point to be useful. What's important is not simply that exact kind (which would be a purely academic discussion) but the kind where people are getting hurt becasue of stupidity (which is a practical and actionable discussion).

leroyjenkens said:
You're saying the reason Mythbusters had the falling bullets as a subject on Mythbusters was to prove that it's not harmless fun? Well they sort of failed on that point, since their experiments indicated that it wouldn't kill a person.

What point am I missing?
They are bringing awareness to the issue. It is doubtful that viewers watching the ep will think to themselves "You know, it's not lethal, so I guess it's OK...". More likely they will say "Gee, I hadn't really thought about what happens to those bullets once I fire them..."
 
  • #43
The point is that firing guns into the air can result in bullets returning to Earth with sufficient velocity to kill people. This is not a urban legend. It is real, and it is provable by classical physics. There is no reason to haul in a TV show to "prove" your point. Physics trumps entertainment.
You're being disingenuous by trying to invalidate Mythbusters by calling it a TV show and entertainment. They invoke physics to address myths. Why are physics and entertainment mutually exclusive?
Regardless, Evo qualified her claim.

While the specific instance RootX is referring to doesn't happen all the time, one can deduce that Evo finds that too specious a point to be useful. What's important is not simply that exact kind (which would be a purely academic discussion) but the kind where people are getting hurt becasue of stupidity (which is a practical and actionable discussion).
What's wrong with academic discussion? On a physics forum that seems perfectly reasonable.
They are bringing awareness to the issue. It is doubtful that viewers watching the ep will think to themselves "You know, it's not lethal, so I guess it's OK...". More likely they will say "Gee, I hadn't really thought about what happens to those bullets once I fire them..."
The main purpose of the show is to address "myths", not to provide a public service. It's your assumption that that is the point of the show.
 
  • #44
leroyjenkens said:
You're being disingenuous by trying to invalidate Mythbusters by calling it a TV show and entertainment. They invoke physics to address myths. Why are physics and entertainment mutually exclusive?
They aren't mutually exclusive, the point is that confirmed cases trump a TV show.

leroyjenkens said:
What's wrong with academic discussion? On a physics forum that seems perfectly reasonable.
Nothing, but it ignores an issue of real-world suffering. I am going to put words in Evo's mouth and suggest that she's trying to say there's a real problem here, not just an interesting physics experiment.

leroyjenkens said:
The main purpose of the show is to address "myths", not to provide a public service. It's your assumption that that is the point of the show.
No one thinks that is the point of the show is to provide a public service. The point of the show is to entertain. That is not to say they are not addressing relevant issues and enlightening people about the scientific method,

but that still doesn't mean their experiments invalidate a read-world event.


I'll return to something you said previously:
No experiment can "prove" I didn't just get visited by a dragon.
This is correct. This shows the limitations of experimentation; it is not a magic bullet. Why is why Mythbusters cannot invalidate a real-world event.
 
  • #45
DaveC426913 said:
They aren't mutually exclusive, the point is that confirmed cases trump a TV show.

Nothing, but it ignores an issue of real-world suffering. I am going to put words in Evo's mouth and suggest that she's trying to say there's a real problem here, not just an interesting physics experiment.No one thinks that is the point of the show is to provide a public service. The point of the show is to entertain. That is not to say they are not addressing relevant issues and enlightening people about the scientific method,

but that still doesn't mean their experiments invalidate a read-world event.I'll return to something you said previously:

This is correct. This shows the limitations of experimentation; it is not a magic bullet. Why is why Mythbusters cannot invalidate a real-world event.

You argued for Evo yet continued contributing towards derailing this thread, so I am confused :biggrin: Better alternative would have been letting other speak and get exhausted IMHO.
 
  • #46
The only point of my bringing up the Mythbusters episode was to mention that they had tracked down several confirmed cases of this happening. It is a regular occurrence. But somehow, no matter how much it happens, some people don't seem to get the message...

I wonder what it would take to make people realize that shooting off guns randomly into the air is a problem?
 
  • #47
rootX said:
You argued for Evo yet continued contributing towards derailing this thread, so I am confused :biggrin: Better alternative would have been letting other speak and get exhausted IMHO.
I'm not stopping anyone from pursuing whatver they wish.
 
  • #48
http://www.straightdope.com/columns...-into-the-air-kill-someone-when-it-comes-down
Straight Dope on falling bullets.

And from the CDC
In Puerto Rico, where such celebratory actions are common, news media reports have indicated that approximately two persons die and an estimated 25 more are injured each year from celebratory gunfire on New Year's Eve.
http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5350a2.htm
That's just in Puerto Rico. Falling bullets have long been known to be a danger and this sort of accident is not uncommon or unique. In fact, according to the CDC article, in Puerto Rico women and children are statistically more likely to be victims of "celebratory gunfire" than than any other sort of gunfire mishap.

Just so we are all on the same page and realize that this is a real problem and not some off chance occurrence.
 
  • #49
This might sound a bit weird coming from a Canuk (although a well-armed one), considering that the Yanks are the gun-toting crowd...
Do not ever point a firearm, even if you think that it's unloaded, toward anything that you don't intend to inflict deadly force upon.
In fact, there have been people that I wished to inflict deadly harm upon, and I didn't draw. Over 90% of my enemies are dead, and I didn't have any direct input toward that. Patience pays off.

Again, though... don't ever fire a weapon unless you know exactly what is down-range.
 
  • #50
They aren't mutually exclusive, the point is that confirmed cases trump a TV show.
How accurate are the confirmed cases? More accurate than a TV show? How do you know?
Nothing, but it ignores an issue of real-world suffering. I am going to put words in Evo's mouth and suggest that she's trying to say there's a real problem here, not just an interesting physics experiment.
A problem of falling bullets or a problem of people shooting guns on New Years?
No one thinks that is the point of the show is to provide a public service. The point of the show is to entertain. That is not to say they are not addressing relevant issues and enlightening people about the scientific method,

but that still doesn't mean their experiments invalidate a read-world event.
It doesn't invalidate it as far as proving that no one got shot. It can invalidate how they got shot.
You're taking the "real-world" event as if every detail of it is perfect and saying that if the experiments don't comply with that, then there's something wrong with the experiments.
I'll give you an example. Say my house blows up one day. I tell the police I was doing chemistry experiments by mixing different liquids together. I mixed water and milk and suddenly it exploded and I survived. So in this case the "real world event" is water and milk being mixed into an explosive mixture.
If a group of scientists get together and try to recreate the circumstances exactly with water and milk and find that it's impossible for my house to have exploded from that, whose side do you take? You could just say "Well his house exploded from the mixture of milk and water, so therefore it had to have happened, regardless of scientists proving it's impossible".
Or do you say "Well the scientists proved it's impossible, so there must have been something different about what Leroy was doing that he didn't reveal."

Why is the "real-world event" automatically infallible?
http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5350a2.htm
That's just in Puerto Rico. Falling bullets have long been known to be a danger and this sort of accident is not uncommon or unique. In fact, according to the CDC article, in Puerto Rico women and children are statistically more likely to be victims of "celebratory gunfire" than than any other sort of gunfire mishap.

Just so we are all on the same page and realize that this is a real problem and not some off chance occurrence.
The question is, how do they determine it's a falling bullet? Here's a quote from the article you posted:
First, no standards exist for defining cases of celebratory gunfire injuries. For example, the "lost bullet" classification used by Puerto Rico law enforcement does not differentiate between falling bullets and stray bullets.
 

Similar threads

News Should Young Children Be Given Real Firearms?
2
Replies
87
Views
12K
News ROFLMAO happy new year from bill blum
Replies
10
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top