TexasCHLforum.com

Be careful when you shoot!

https://www.gosanangelo.com/story/news/ ... 408726002/

rule number 2 always know whats behind your target and beyond... (rule number 1 is always treat a firearm as if it were loaded andto not point at anything you're not willing to kill/destroy)

I think some people really overestimate the ability of a slight rise or trees/brush in the background to stop a bullet.

MechAg94 wrote:I think some people really overestimate the ability of a slight rise or trees/brush in the background to stop a bullet.

Hunters especially.

spectre wrote:

MechAg94 wrote:I think some people really overestimate the ability of a slight rise or trees/brush in the background to stop a bullet.

Hunters especially.

I suspect that if some hunters cannot verify the existence of a structure within sight of where they are hunting, they assume there are no structures at all along that line of bearing. That’s not a valid assumption, and it’s a powerful argument for getting to know the lay of the land around where you hunt, and not just the lay of the property you’re hunting on. That said, I do believe that there are instances of genuine bad luck, where someone took reasonable precautions, and a stranger was still unintentionally hurt.

I’m thinking specifically of a few years ago, when a guy target shooting with a .50 BMG rifle fired into a berm erected for that purpose, and the bullet ricocheted and struck a woman several miles away in the arm, inside her motor home, while she and her husband were attending a racing event at the Texas Motor Speedway. As I recall, he was shooting on the property of an acquaintance of his, on a private home-built range built by that acquaintance. My guess is that there had to have been a large rock or piece of steel of sufficient size buried just below the surface of the dirt, to cause the bullet to ricochet like that. If so, then the berm was not properly constructed. Yes, the shooter owns the bullet that struck the woman, and so he bears some responsibility for what happened, but he also acted in good faith that the berm - which he did not build himself - was safe to use, as it had been erected for that purpose. So in my opinion, he shares that responsibility with his acquaintance who built the berm improperly. That may not be what the letter of the law says, but it is strictly a moral judgement on my part.

It is possible that I am not remembering in full detail all the particulars of that incident, and so my conclusion might be flawed,