Stray bullet kills English astrophysicist visiting Atlanta

Post Reply New Topic

People have been making that sort of half joking suggestion for years, teach the bangers how to shoot straight so they only hit each other and not bystanders, but that hasn't worked out with the cops, so I'm dubious.

Not to get too far afield, but though I lack any numbers, I suspect that the rapid proliferation of miniaturized optical sights for pistols has actually made the cops more accurate, as it seems like I'm seeing fewer stories where they fire a fusillade at a suspect and hit everything except the guy they were aiming for, which used to be common. I'm adding them to all of my pistols myself as they really do make rapid fire accuracy much easier, just put the dot on the target and don't jerk the trigger and you're golden. They don't make the cops less likely to overuse lethal force, but if they make that force less likely to impact the wrong people, I'm all for it, it's rare to get a clean technological fix like that.

Cops can handle the bad guys shooting better, as they should expect that. Ambushes are usually what get people in that context, and not much can be done about that other than situational awareness.

Yeah, handguns aren't all that easy to shoot without much training, especially when it comes to combat stuff with moving targets and ranges beyond 15 yards or so, though it's easy to avoid sending rounds in a way that'll endanger others, which would likely be good focus on any of those not-really-joking outreach programs, and as you said, it'll be useful for everyone in that game, not just the bad dudes. Good guys tend to learn it, but they sometimes fail.

I played around with optics on handguns, but I didn't bother. I started with open sights and trained with such, so I stayed there as I didn't want to mess anything up. Left-handed and right-eye dominant here, and it took a lot of shooting to get that down to an automatic thing. Isosceles. Though, I did train with my left and right hand, left and right eye, one and two-handed, various positions and stances, reloading one handed with either hand and so on. I can see why optics would be handy for those that are starting out or don't train to a high level with open sights.

I was a 1911 boi with rubber band covered grips. My dad taught that rubber band trick to me. Helps when your hands are sweaty, which tends to happen off the range.

How long ago and what kind of optics? The newer micro red dots are lightyears ahead of the older cantilever mounted stuff you'd sometimes see on competition guns, I've been shooting irons my whole life and I'm switching to optics as quickly as I can afford to, the newer Holosun 507 series with the circle dot reticles are truly game changing on handguns. I got into them as an alternative to tall sights on my silencer hosts, but being able to shoot with both eyes open from odd angles and without worrying about sight alignment sold me, along with seeing my groups shrink while my split times went down. I'm still glad I can shoot with irons, but MRDS is definitely the way of the future here.

So do stray bullets kill have to kill "important people" in Atlanta before anyone takes any notice?

Dox, I haven’t forgotten your follow up questions. Just not sure I’m into winning my point enough to find the data I was thinking of when I wrote what I did.

20-22 years ago and what the race gun guys were using due to shared range and I guess they pioneered them there (no interest with the combat guys back then), which were about the same as some used today; mostly slide mounted, though not as low profile/unobtrusive as many of the new ones you see. Red dots. This was back when 1911s were still the number one deal in both worlds, and Blocks were starting to creep in (I like the Block 21 all the same). I'm a fan of open sights on basically everything but marksman/sniper/hunting rifles too, so I guess I'm an old man even if not that old (I'm pretty sure using rubber bands to deactivate the grip safety and make the grip grippy on a 1911 will date my era, even if I'm younger than that one). Yeah, they'd be very useful on suppressed handguns. Yeah again, they likely are the future, much like what they did to carbines/rifles/shotguns/everything else.

I can switch between dominant and non-dominant eye, but again, that took a lot of shooting/training, which was probably too much considering it was just a handgun, which isn't much of a weapon in the grand scheme of things. It can come in handy though if that's all you have. I could put out double taps about the same as a single for all intents (basic 230 grain ball). I'd paint the entire front sight post orange, which was another one of those things my father taught me.

I'll add, I wasn't much fan of the new handgun training that was coming in around that time that snuck in, which was to square up fully and advance as you fire when there's no cover. Seemed like a good way to catch a solid COM or CNS hit, as you should expect to get hit in a handgun range fight. Walking to 2 or 10 o'clock as you advance and fire can give a small chance you'll catch a non-lethal hit. Neither here nor there, I suppose.

cyberdad,

There's really nothing anyone can do here outside of trying to educate people that can't be. People that light up buildings for fun are beyond reasoning with there. Some people shouldn't have firearms, but life doesn't work out like that.

Well, you've got me curious, as you seemed to be suggesting that there was some sort of technical fix that was being ignored and I can't imagine what design feature would prevent gangsters from shooting at each other.

That sounds bizarre, I've heard some weird arguments about the wisdom of blading to present a narrower target (some guys claim you're more likely to take a fatal hit with your heart and lungs in line like that), but I don't think I've ever encountered this square up and advance head on approach, it was always get off the X first, move to the shooter's outside if there is no cover. Was this training for cops where armor was a given? I can kind of see it in that case, where presenting at an angle exposes your armpit to a potential fatal shot through the gap in the armor there, but otherwise that sounds very unwise.

Aren't many of the victims of stray bullets collateral damage from gang violence in Atlanta? In the news gangs in Atlanta seem to have a similar reputation to the old days of the bloods Vs crips in LA

That'd be the combat fields, and yes, armor, but even with armor you still have your torso towards the target/s due to isosceles when advancing diagonally, which is why I thought it was odd. You get a little faster target acquisition with your entire body square on when advancing to be fair. I guess it was seen as more aggressive and useful for teams (easier for teams to advance down corridors side by side in a straight line off the walls), but sometimes you aren't with a team, and it was still taught to individuals all the same; keep on advancing straight, firing, reloading and firing no matter what (if there's no cover you can get to in time).

I can see why it was done, as it's a simple concept and not complicated. I'm sure it still is. I'd rather go diagonal, as the other guy has a crossing target to deal with which complicates him (especially when it's reasonable to assume you're both going to get hits). Real life never really works out like what one would rather though. No one really thinks they'll lose the use of an arm or the firing pin will break, but training with the off-hand and quick failure drills then discard for backup are why those things are done. Off-hand one-handed as dominant took a hit with your non-dominant eye because dominant caught splash and on your back trying to skip rounds under a vehicle could come in handy, maybe.

It happened in the late 1970s in a very rural small town. The local police investigated the accident. The kid that died was about six, slightly older than I was. He (the victim) was black and my cousin (the killer) is white. Likely the case was swept under the carpet by the locals, as it was a very racist area. My uncle was suffering from severe PTSD at the time from the Vietnam war experiences and was treating himself with alcohol to wash away the pain. He was away working at the time as an electrician for a utility company.

The victim came over to play with another female cousin. I think this is what started it. I was three blocks away from it when it happened. All I remember is playing with my Tonga trucks with my other cousins in my grandparent’s driveway when the police and fire trucks went by with lights and sirens blaring. Then my other uncle screeched up the street to get to the house. After that was a blur. My parents took us home shortly after. I did not learn what had happened until much later on, as my parents and grandparents did not want to discuss it.

I do not know much more of the specifics of what happened other than that. His father was blamed by my grandparents for it and became the black sheep of the family. My cousin was considered golden as he was the first born male of his generation, so this was not his fault according to my grandfather. After that point in time, I and my other male cousins were considered second or third class compared to him. I do not like to visit my grandparents’ grave because of this. My mother cannot understand why.

If I recall, it is probably less about what is, than what is possible, I think, although I have some memory of technology simply not being pursued as not profitable enough. Long run, if there is a will there is a way. Why can't they, for example, design bullets that won't go through walls? I think the problem is more lack of will. If they wanted to reduce these incidences, I truly believe they could.

Well, they've tried that with regard to bullets, the most famous example being the Glaser Safety Slug, a very light hollow bullet filled with compressed lead shot suspended in polymer fired at extremely high velocity that breaks up on impact, but those have had both reliability and performance issues, as they break up so quickly that they don't always penetrate deeply enough to cause an incapacitating wound. There is just no getting around the fact that firearms project energy by means of accelerating a dense projectile to high velocity, and that something heavy enough moving fast enough to properly function as a weapon is also going to penetrate light walls, it's just physics. Even if you were able to solve the engineering challenge and design some kind of super bullet that's selectively frangible, it's going to be expensive to manufacture and likely proprietary to the inventing company, and there is still going to be a need for cheap practice ammo and solid hunting ammo (game animals are much tougher than humans and require solidly constructed bullets to take humanely), and I doubt gangbangers are going to buy boutique ammo.

Again, the real "fix" here is to attack the violence problem, but that doesn't seem to be the actual priority from the liberal side of the aisle, it's just another excuse for the gun control they already want.

That requires a fair bit more nuance than creating a police state for poor people
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... ess-crime/

It feels to me like we constantly attack the violence problem. Realistically, violence is as old as time and while we can try to mitigate it, it isn't going away. The variable that isn't as old as time? The type of weapon used, although going backwards there wouldn't always be an improvement for innocent bystanders.