this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2025
383 points (97.3% liked)

Not The Onion

18157 readers
2080 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Sibbo@sopuli.xyz 39 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Who builds a gun range in a way that bullets can escape if shot from appropriate positions?

[–] LyD@lemmy.ca 88 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

I am pretty sure this is the gun range and you're supposed to shoot in the direction of the blue arrow. That big mound of earth is where the targets would be and is supposed to catch stray bullets. Something tells me that redneck fuckery was involved.

Found it on Google maps, I think I was right.

[–] Triumph@fedia.io 69 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's frankly amazing that this very pertinent information you revealed after the briefest of Google searches isn't included in the "official" reporting.

[–] sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.com 28 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Hey!

HEY!

Journalism is hard, ok?

jfc what a joke

[–] Steve@startrek.website 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

JFC they were shooting uprange to make this happen

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

Supposedly the shooters weren't on that property at all.

[–] AlDente@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Either fuckery, or a ricochet. My first time shooting tracers was eye-opening to how much bullets bounce around. This guy shooting a 50-cal is hit in his earmuffs after the berm launches the round back at him.

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

To keep enough velocity and stay at a consistent height and ricochet in that direction seems much less likely than they were just shooting in the wrong direction.

[–] AlDente@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago

I agree that fuckery is the most likely explanation in this case. However, ricochets do not need to remain at a constant height or velocity to hurt someone. A round bounced backward and arched just enough to clear the treeline would be enough. I'm kinda shocked an outdoor range would be allowed this close to those fields. Regardless of physical danger, imagine concentrating on playing ball while gunshots ring out in an adjacent lot!

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Don't bother to comment out speculation if you haven't even bothered to read the article and watch the video. Like 30 bullets didn't ricochet 500+ yards away into a baseball field.

[–] AlDente@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

My point is not that heavy volume is required for this to happen, and it's strange how you could jump to that conclusion.

Instead, a higher rate of fire gives more opportunities to witness anomolies between shots, within a given time. Combine this with tracers, and now you can easily follow these paths, before and after each bullet hits it's initial target.

With a 6000 round-per-minute minigun, even if you only see one tracer bounce away every second, that demonstrates a 1% chance for every round to deflect and hit somewhere unintended.

Considering that the tracers are normally spaced out on a belt, with other rounds between them; the sample size can be reduced further, and this chance becomes multiple times higher.

When yearly machine-gun shoots were still hosted in Knob Creek, Kentucky, the range staffed people left and right of the firing line with fire extinguishers. After the 'finale' occurred and weapons were cleared, they would run out onto the hills beside the range.

With multiple miniguns firing alongside other automatics, and the insane number of rounds fired downrange, it was inevitable to have more than enough hot tracers land in the brush of these hills to start multiple small fires.

The possibility of ricochet injury is simply matter of probability. Sure, I would never claim this is the most probable explanation, but it's silly to claim there's absolutely no chance this could happen.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Cool write up. Ricochet bullets can't travel that far, and it's the wrong direction.

[–] AlDente@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I've already posted a video of a complete trajectory reversal. Maybe you didn't watch it, but otherwise you're being stubbornly ignorant choosing to completely ignore video evidence. Also, a 1/2 mile really isn't far for something moving over 3000 ft/s. It's clear you're not speaking from an educated position on this topic.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 14 hours ago

Firstly, it's reported that the shots weren't from the gun range. Second; have you seen the overhead view of the range? What exactly do you think the bullets could be bouncing off of at that range? Your thought process is just silly.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There is no amount of Ricochet on this Earth that would result in this.

[–] AlDente@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

If you've seen tracer fire in real life, I doubt you would keep that position. The fact that a falling bullet traveling at terminal velocity is enough to kill or injure someone, combined with the fact that bullets travel for miles would instantly tell you otherwise. Watch tracers fired at night and you can see how frequent ricochets are when hitting a mix of rocks in dirt. The last video I shared already demonstrated that complete trajectory reversals are even possible, not that this is even required in this circumstance.

The baseball field is only about 1/2 mile from the range backstop (about 22% of a 5.56 bullet's maximum range). All it would take is a rock plowed up into an inopportune position on the berm to set off a freak accident. Now, as I've said in another comment, I absolutely don't believe this is the most likely explanation; however, to discount it as an impossibility is ignorant.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

The range of a round when fired and the range of a round after it hits a rock and bounces are two incredibly vastly different things. Also nobody's talking about a bullet falling from the sky. Look at where that range is look at the angle from which they're firing and look at where the baseball field is. There is no possibility a Ricochet fired at that range could bounce back into that baseball field like they claim. It's not possible.

[–] LyD@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I think he made a good case for it being possible. That baseball field really isn't far away from a bullet's perspective. He mentioned his first time shooting tracers, which makes me think he has a lot of real life experience shooting FMJ bullets and seeing them ricochet. He posted videos showing ricochets, you can see them maintaining almost all of their momentum.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The issue isn't the distance, though I think it's further than you think, it's angle. You can see where the range is. You can see where the baseball field is. It's not possible. The JFK bullet couldn't do this. He made a good case for ricochets being a thing that happens, not in this case.

[–] LyD@lemmy.ca 2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I'm still not seeing any issue. A bullet can ricochet in any direction. The first thing @AlDente@sh.itjust.works posted was a video example of a bullet ricocheting directly backwards (nearly straight up I think?), then ricocheting again off the ground and into the shooter's earmuff.

He showed enough examples and hard numbers for distance to convince me that this could be a freak accident. If you want to change my mind, you're going to have to provide counterexamples. I'm even convinced that it could happen with many bullets in a row if the shooting was consistent.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Counter examples to what? You're saying that someone shot down that range and it ricocheted directly back into the baseball field? Like what's the argument here? That's the problem I'm having you and the other guy, or your alt I'm not sure, haven't made any arguments about the feasibility of a Ricochet from that range going to that field. Which we know didn't happen by the way. That's not even in question. But even the possibility you haven't given any evidence for. You're arguing that ricochets can happen. Which is not the argument.

My example is basic geometry and basic physics. Learn how angles work dude I don't know. Learn that bullets can't turn 45° in midair. What are you arguing. Trace the line for me. Trace the line from down the range back around the dirt embankments and toward the field.

[–] LyD@lemmy.ca 1 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

He said a ricochet was possible and put an argument together with video examples and distance numbers. You haven't done much except express disbelief, and that isn't very convincing.

You said a ricochet at the correct angle to land in the baseball field would be impossible, and you asked me to draw the trajectory.

Honest question, why is this so hard to imagine? He posted this video, can you watch it and tell me what you think? https://youtu.be/0ABGIJwiGBc

I think we all know this was probably just redneck shit, no argument there.

[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 1 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

You did notice that wasn't a straight line you just drew right?

Also you're very obsessed with those videos he posted. I've seen them before they're not new videos. I've shot a 50 caliber before. I've had ricochets bounce back at me before. I'm not quite sure why he chose a 50 caliber for his example by the way it's an absurd example to use. The reason I don't talk about them much is because they're irrelevant. No one's arguing that ricochet's don't occur. Third time I've had to say that.

[–] LyD@lemmy.ca 0 points 12 hours ago (1 children)
[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not sure what this is in reference to. The curved line you drew? It undermines your entire argument. That's what.

[–] LyD@lemmy.ca 0 points 12 hours ago (1 children)
[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)
[–] LyD@lemmy.ca 1 points 12 hours ago
[–] _cryptagion@anarchist.nexus 18 points 1 day ago

They didn’t, the headline is shit and they shouldn’t have included that quote, because the gunfire came from a property that wasn’t the gun range.

[–] rljkeimig@lemmy.world 27 points 1 day ago

The article says that the people who were shooting weren't on the shooting range property, so it was probably just some morons shooting guns in an unsafe location who and direction who can't be bothered to use the shooting range. Hopefully the range, were they to actually use it as intended, has proper berms and backstops to keep any rounds from going an unsafe direction.