June 28, 2017

Woman shoots a man to death with a .50-caliber Desert Eagle firearm and says it was his idea as a stunt for her vlog.

He was holding a book, and she says he believed the book would stop the bullet and that he'd already tested the bullet-stopping power of another book. 

Before the shooting, she had tweeted "Me and Pedro are probably going to shoot one of the most dangerous videos ever. HIS idea not MINE."
[Monalisa] Perez told authorities that Ruiz had been trying to convince her "for a while" to shoot the book while he held it for a YouTube video.

Ruiz had set up a GoPro camera and another camera on a ladder nearby to record the stunt, according to the complaint. The two cameras — which recorded the shooting — have been secured as evidence for the investigation.
She shoots that .50-caliber gun from a foot away. Here's what that gun looks like:



How could he possibly have thought the book would protect him? But how can she be lying if there is 2-camera footage of the entire incident? She's charged only with manslaughter, so the authorities must believe her story, right?

136 comments:

David Begley said...

Darwin Award winner.

AlbertAnonymous said...

Took the words out of my mouth, um ... I mean keyboard.

rhhardin said...

They should have used a bible.

They stop bullets in all the movies.

Gahrie said...

Unlike the bitch who convinced the kid to get back in the truck, this one deserves to walk.

David Begley said...

Minnesota residents; where all the children are above average. They lived north and east of Fargo in Norman County.

Achilles said...

At least he died and he didn't get someone else killed.

YoungHegelian said...

A fifty-freakin' caliber bullet at point blank range!?

That would probably go through all the volumes of St Thomas' Summa T., hard bound, much less a single book.

This was a guy who knew his guns?

Michael K said...

Darwin would be ashamed to award that idiot.

Maybe Margaret Mead Award,

Sample Commenter said...

Morons can't live forever. Feel bad for her though, she fucked up, she trusted him.

buwaya said...

That is a very impractical pistol.
And no doubt quite difficult for a novice to shoot accurately.
I suspect the real problem is that the poor woman missed.

tcrosse said...

The book was The Art of the Deal. Impeach!

gspencer said...

”he believed the book would stop the bullet and that he’d already tested the bullet-stopping power of another book”

The book that failed the test was called The Audacity of Hope because it was filled with either mushy empty words. That book that passed the test was called The Art of the Deal.

Xmas said...

The guy showed her a different book that he had shot before where the bullet didn't go all the way through.

In my head I'm thinking that he shot that book while it was standing free while she shot a book that was firmly held in his hands. The free standing book would have acted differently to the bullet strike.

Mark said...

And people object when it is pointed out some absolute morons are gun nuts.

The next time someone argues for conceal carry, I am going to think of the decision making shown here.

DanTheMan said...

Hey, kids, don't try this at home!


Words to live by.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

My guess is that they used a different book for the practice round. For this stunt you need two copies of the exact same book. It's not just the overall thickness, but the paper and the cover. Also, holding the book versus placing it against a backstop could be a factor in penetration.

The Drill SGT said...

When I read the title, I thought we were talking about a real 50 caliber weapon. e.g. one chambered for the 50 BMG.

That pistol cartridge is big, but the pistol and round generate about 1,600 ft/lbs of force

The 50 BMG in a rifle or M2 generates 14,000 Ft/Lb




Matthew Sablan said...

They may have charged her with the lesser charge fearing a jury may not convict on murder. This was dumb. Sad. Sad and dumb. Sadumb.

robother said...

The Bible? I mean, sure, the Ten Commandments can stop a speeding car, but a fifty caliber bullet at muzzle velocity?

Gahrie said...

And people object when it is pointed out some absolute morons are gun nuts.

Point it out as much as you want. Just don't try to use it an excuse to destroy my Second Amendment rights.

Inga said...

Idiot gun lovers.

Bob Boyd said...

He chose the same title as the first time. Unfortunately it was audio book.
Abridged.

DanTheMan said...

>>Also, holding the book versus placing it against a backstop could be a factor in penetration.

It's a 50 AE!! *1500* foot pounds of energy, or about TWICE a 44 Magnum. A book just isn't going to do it...


Matthew Sablan said...

Do people say idiot skateboard lovers or bicycle lovers when someone dled something stupid with them? If someone gets food poisoning do we say stupid buffet lovers?

Big Mike said...

I think Xmas has it right.

Matthew Sablan said...

Are people who drown in the pool stupid water lovers?

William said...

Unfortunately, she missed the book entirely and shot him square between the eyes. Although she was a competitive markswoman, the missed shot can be blamed on the pressure of shooting at a living human being. Also, one should not read too much into her being the beneficiary of a recently purchased million dollar insurance policy. The man lived a high risk life, and she felt it prudent to bet against his durability. .

rcocean said...

Never use the Clift notes version to stop a bullet.

Matthew Sablan said...

If someone has a heart attack hiking do we say stupid nature lovers?

Lucien said...

Apparently NOT a Darwin Award Winner since the shooter is pregnant with his child.

Diogenes of Sinope said...

How sad.

rcocean said...

BTW, this reminds me of William Burroughs, "accidentally" killing his girl friend in Mexico City after she dared him to shoot an apple off her head.

Of course, both of them may have been high on drugs.

Bob Boyd said...

Left Bank of the Charles said...
"My guess is that they used a different book for the practice round. For this stunt you need two copies of the exact same book. It's not just the overall thickness, but the paper and the cover. Also, holding the book versus placing it against a backstop could be a factor in penetration.'

Make a video.

rcocean said...

A speech and a extra pair of glasses saved Teddy Roosevelt when he was shot by an assailant in the chest. Supposedly, it saved his life along with his massive chest muscles.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

It's always so fun when gun nuts go and off each other in the way that they prefer.

Otto said...

Ann why does this story interest you?

Mark said...

As I said during the discussion on assisted suicide, the case law is clear that consent to the act or the consequence is not a defense to homicide.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

I wonder what percentage of Darwin Award winners go by firearm.

Matthew Sablan said...

Does anyone ever talk about car nuts after a tragic avoidable accident?

Charlie Eklund said...

If I were going to suggest a book which might stop a .50 AE bullet, I wouldn't recommend anything less substantial than an NYC phone book, circa1975. Nice and thick, 1500 pages or more but it still might not do the trick. Definitely not recommended: shooting in the direction of a live human being in any circumstance other than self-defense.

Bob Boyd said...

Even if it would have worked, publishing the video would likely have gotten some other young, invincible, knucklehead killed.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Does anyone ever talk about car nuts after a tragic avoidable accident?

Lo and behold. Getting from Point A to Point B is a little less avoidable than fantasizing about perpetual violent national takeover.

And yes. If some guy spent 24/7 turning his car into a self-made, turbo-charged, monster mobile that he revved up and down the street at night before swerving off a cliff at 120 mph one night, I think people would describe him as a car nut.

madAsHell said...

Don't shoot at something that you don't want to destroy, and check what's behind the target.

I'm pretty sure that's covered in the user's manual for just about every new weapon.

mtrobertslaw said...

Ahh, William Borroughs. No idiot here, he was a serious artist.

Paul Ciotti said...

Here in California, if someone does something so reckless that someone dies, even he had no intention of killing anyone, the charge is still murder.

clint said...

"Xmas said...
The guy showed her a different book that he had shot before where the bullet didn't go all the way through.

In my head I'm thinking that he shot that book while it was standing free while she shot a book that was firmly held in his hands. The free standing book would have acted differently to the bullet strike."

That's my guess too.

Ken B said...

Did Sarah Palin put him up to it?

tcrosse said...

So it was the Tibetan Book of the Dead.

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

Mm. Hostess: when putting up a firearm video, pls select one where the shooter takes his finger out of the trigger guard whilst waving the weapon about. Thx. HMG

Khesanh 0802 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kevin said...

"If someone gets food poisoning do we say stupid buffet lovers?"

We do chuckle when it's vegetarians getting sick eating kale.

David Begley said...

From the local newspaper in Crookston, "The couple also has a 3-year-old daughter who witnessed the incident."

James said...

Not a Darwin Award Winner. He had one kid already another one is on the way.

Big Mike said...

Did he shoot hollow points first time and then she shoot FMJ the second time? All I know is that I wouldn't have done that stunt holding a 3/8 inch steel plate, much less a book.

(Sarah Hoyt could turn that idea about hollow point then FMJ into the plot of a detective novel.)

n.n said...

Respect the baby... I mean, gun. Planned Celebrityhood attained with a double-edged scalpel.

holdfast said...

@madAsHell

Most gun manuals printed these days are damned near unusable due to all the legal boilerplate. All that ALLCAPS red text is a visual assault.

chuck said...

This may be relevant to the Desert Eagle employed:

"Deodand is a thing forfeited or given to God, specifically, in law, an object or instrument which becomes forfeit because it has caused a person's death.

...

Under this law, a chattel (i.e. some personal property, such as a horse or a hay stack) was considered a deodand whenever a coroner's jury decided that it had caused the death of a human being.
"

MaxedOutMama said...

I think her story probably is true - but what kind of insanity is this? Disturbing doesn't suffice.

It depends on the state laws as to whether this qualifies as murder or manslaughter, but it's appalling regardless. I guess this goes to a jury who has to decide, and I pity that jury. Is "dumb as a rock" really a good defense? But I can personally think of several credulous individuals who might believe what they were told in such a case.

Earnest Prole said...

A deplorable incident

Mary Beth said...

How long before someone tries to sue YouTube for fostering an environment where people will do stupid things to become famous?

readering said...

Did she fire it while they were bungee jumping?

LordSomber said...

Back, and to the left.
Back, and to the left.

MaxedOutMama said...

Note: the 19 year old perp and her dead boyfriend already had a three year-old, and she's pregnant and due in September. They probably were looking to make a big publicty splash if the video went viral, and that was the theory behind this - it was really about money. She's 19 and he was 22.

Now two kids essentially orphaned. What the heck. What a legacy.

An example of young and dumb and tragic that is beyond words.

David53 said...

Insanity. I hate when people bring those to the range.

mockturtle said...

Did she proceed after saying, "Hold my beer and watch this!"?

traditionalguy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
traditionalguy said...

Hmmm? Will she show up tomorrow with her new boyfriend who has taken over the Business.

I don't believe her story. That 50 cal is only sold because it is for shooting through a truck's engine block

Danno said...

That gun certainly appears to be a bit of overkill.

Danno said...

Judging by their names and where they are from, I bet they are children of Hispanic migrant laborers that came to work at large farms or in meat slaughtering factories. Not my idea of a good way to get your 15 minutes of fame.

James Smith said...

Not a Darwin prize winner since he has 2 kids. Definitely proof of the saying: do stupid things, win stupid prizes.

Snark said...

Would have worked out so much better if he was 50 and shot with a .22. Always write down the instructions people. Always.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

If you think you can fly and you test that belief by jumping off a building you are an asshole.
Some books can stop some bullets. Low power pistol bullets can be stopped by smallish books--the many pages absorb a surprising amount of energy. The Sopranos had a semi-comic scene where a mobster mock executes a woman using (I think) a .25 and a phone book. It might work!
But, you know, if you believe this would work with this pistol, it's something you should test on a dummy. Several times. Like, a lot. If your big test is with your own life...

Fen said...

Inga: "stupid wetbacks"

Typical.

Ken B said...

That's a remarkable video. Was it made by the manufacturer's competitors?

MisterBuddwing said...

But, you know, if you believe this would work with this pistol, it's something you should test on a dummy.

I think they did. (Pardon the disrespect.)

Unknown said...

I know someone who shot a squirrel with his Desert Eagle. He never found the squirrel, only a tuft of fur.

Bad Lieutenant said...

How could he possibly have thought the book would protect him?

Ann, that would require mansplaining. Can you take it?

Briefly, bigger bullets, cartridges, and/or guns don't always equal more penetration. There are many factors. A sufficiency of paper pages (paper is essentially very thin wood) will stop any bullet, even a Raufoss .50 BMG (in such case, many phone books' worth, but still a finite number).

Also the positioning, angle, and many other details govern what will happen, ricochets, etc. It's possible that the victim previously had propped up a book on end, shot the book, and dug into the book and found the bullet. Or at least, found that it didn't come out the other cover. So he thought it would be OK.

Since he probably didn't want to die, I'm sure he tested it, but his testing was clearly not valid. But isn't it the dunning-kruger effect where people who are incompetent to do a thing think they are?

If David Blaine did the "bullet catch" trick and died, like Chung Ling Soo, would it be his assistant's fault? In fact he injured himself trying it, yet repeated the act.

Yeah that kind of wandered, hence not mansplaining. But I hope it was helpful.

Unknown said...

Little Daddy 1911 is wearing shorts.

Trumpit said...

I tell you what is stupid and scary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSM-56_Bulava

The destructive capacity of these missiles is beyond human capacity to understand. I believe that an accidental launch is possible because accidents happen. What would be the U.S.'s responsive if one or more cities are blown off the map? I believe that it would lead to World War III, resulting in the end of life on earth. Not something to lose sleep over? I disagree.

Fen said...

Violation of the 4 basic laws of gun safety:

#3 Never aim at something you don't intend to kill.

Fen said...

The others:

Always treat a weapon as if it was loaded, even when you are "sure" it's not.

Keep your fucking finger out of the trigger well until you intend to shoot.

Always keep your weapon pointed in a safe direction. Usually up.

The Cracker Emcee said...

Bad Lt. is right. Foot pounds of energy and velocity are two different things. With a firm backdrop, the full Oxford dictionary could probably stop a bullet from that Deagle at about "nugatory". I'd bet the bullet knocked the book out of his hands and then knocked his stupid ass out of this world.

Tarrou said...

Darwin wins again.

gadfly said...

Surely this act of stupidity must be nominated for a Darwin Award. Pedro as suicidal and as for Mona Lisa, men have named her for the Darwin gig.

David Begley said...

Little Daddy 1911 has millions of views.

The Vault Dweller said...

I have sympathy for this woman, because I think the man's own idiocy was the primary cause of his death. Nevertheless I believe a manslaughter conviction is appropriate in this case. This is an interesting contrast with that Massachusetts girl who texted her boyfriend into suicide, for whom I hold no sympathy at all yet still feel her conviction was wrong.

JPS said...

Fen, 10:29:

They're all good ones but that one really is key, isn't it?

A former colleague once told the story of himself, as a boy, badgering his dad to let him fire a twelve gauge. His dad eventually gave in, set up a big glass water bottle on a stand, backed him off, told him to put the shotgun to his shoulder, aim, and pull the trigger. The kick knocked the little boy to the ground as the bottle shattered. Then his dad picked him back up and said, "Son, that happens every time you pull the trigger and you can't ever take it back. Do you understand?"

This poor stupid girl.

David said...

I can see why they thought the book would work. If you shoot from only a foot away, the bullet does not have much time to pick up speed.

Fenne said...

Fen is my twin brother. He's missed his nightly dose of medication for several days now. I apologize for his behavior. We, his family, have tried to convince him to admit himself, as he is once again veering into hyper-mania. He has delusions of being smarter, faster and more powerful than mere normal people. He can't be held responsible, please excuse him.

Gospace said...

David said...
I can see why they thought the book would work. If you shoot from only a foot away, the bullet does not have much time to pick up speed.


The bullet starts slowing down once it exits the barrel and gasses are no longer expanding behind it....

Donald Douglas said...

Literally one of the stupidest things I've ever seen. But, the question remains, what if her boyfriend wanted her to hold the book? Would she have believed the book would stop the bullet, a .50 caliber at that?!!

Be said...

A Good Liberal, Leftist sort of friend used to like to remind people that Horses weren't such Nice Animals, and that one could get kicked pretty easily if one touched them wrong, to which she'd get the reply, "Shut Up. What do you know."

I'd ask her why she'd put herself out towards the Stupid, given the reaction she'd get.

"Due Diligence, I guess. We're all going to have to support these folks at some point."

Bruce Hayden said...

"They may have charged her with the lesser charge fearing a jury may not convict on murder. This was dumb. Sad. Sad and dumb. Sadumb."

Two things. One is that charges are routinely bargained down in order to avoid trial on both sides. Secondly, ignoring plea bargains, one of the big distinctions between different levels of nurder and manslaughter is intent or state of mind. Scienter. Obviously, she didn't mean to kill him, so 1st Degree Murder is out. Depraved heart/depraved mind 2nd degree murder is a possibility, that essentially requires an extreme indifference to life, or really an action that has a good chance of killing someone. A drive by shooting of a crowd of strangers might qualify there. Voluntary manslaughter is next down the list, and may fit better. She intended the action (shooting the gun), but had some reason to believe that it wouldn't be fatal. That is where the previous test, if there had been one, would come in. Next below that is typically involuntary manslaughter, where there really was no direct intent, say, you are speeding a bit, go off the road, and kill your passenger. You, along with most everyone else, speeds all the time a bit. This time it was fatal, though usually it isn't.

The problem though with the sort of explanation I just gave is that we had common law definitions of murder and manslaughter, but all 50 states have overridden such by statute, and have done so somewhat, differently, state by state. The statutory definitions are typically somewhat similar to the common law definitions, which is why you are taught the latter in law school, but don't use those definitions in real life.

Etienne said...

"Me and Pedro"

That right there is funny as [expletive]...

Etienne said...

In other news, the lighted floor from Saturday Night Fever, sold for $1.2 M USD (before taxes).

I could probably build you one for $75, if you slide, and don't stomp.

Bruce Hayden said...

"The next time someone argues for conceal carry, I am going to think of the decision making shown here."

Let me suggest that that statement shows lack of knowledge of gun laws and concealed carry permitting. In almost all states, civilians are required to take a gun safety class before getting a concealed carry permit. Often, they are the NRA basic handgun courses. One constant is that the 3 or 4 gun safety rules are taught up front. Here is an example of such:
1) All guns are always (assumed) loaded.
2) Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
3) Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
4) Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.

You sometimes see #2 and #4 combined, and other variations, but this woman clearly violated #2. They are ruthlessly enforced by range safety officers at most ranges. You let the muzzle swing out of line of your targets and esp if it comes close to crossing the body of anyone else, and you will be out of there so fast your head will spin. It is precisely those who have not taken state mandated CCW licensing classes, or other gun safety classes, who are most likely, by far, to violate these gun safety rules.

Bruce Hayden said...

One of the interesting aspects to, or ramifications of, the current permissive CCW permitting that we see in most states in this country, is that these gun rules have similarly permeated the country. If you look at movies from 30 years or so ago, most everyone with a gun drawn would walk around with their fingers on the trigger. No longer. You watch cops clearing a building on TV, and they almost always have their trigger finger "indexed", which means that it is fairly straight, right above the trigger. No target, means no finger on the trigger, or really even in the trigger guard. Why? What happens if they stumble and fall? Most handguns today are drop proof - they won't go off if dropped - unless there is something activating the trigger (like your finger).

JAORE said...

"Me and Pedro (sic - sigh) are going to shoot one of the most dangerous videos ever..."

And there you have it. You are young, stupid and poor. How to get rich quick? Why become a rich and famous UTube star, of course.

But to be a UTube star you need a hook.

Are you extraordinarily beautiful? No? OK have you some really unique skill like singing? No? Hmmmm, would you try a stunt that involves risk,but will make people say, "Day-um, that dude is OUTRAGEOUS? Yes? Great, now we need a find big, scary, dangerous hook. Competition is fierce including bike stunts, jumping off high places and other death defying - or affirming -activities.

Guns? Oh yeah, great idea.

So, chances are these are not "gun nuts", they are attention whores or short-cut to fame and fortune the UTube Way morons.

JAORE said...

Little Daddy's hand sure shakes a lot when firing one handed. When the front sight is dancing around like that accuracy is not to be expected. Might be he's scared of the recoil of that gun. Might also be the gun is a bit heavy for his strength.

If I was trying to portray myself as a gun expert, I believe I'd have edited out the multiple misses when trying to hit a liter bottle at close range in slow fire mode.

That's what you can expect from Little Daddy's channel.

Unknown said...

NRA says, "It is people that kill people not guns."

Yeah right, because if the woman hadn't used a gun the man would still have died somehow.

Trumpski tautological thinking.



Rusty said...

Despite all the lefty snarky hand wringing over this, owning a firearm in America is still safer than being a friend of the Clintons.

Rusty said...

Oh. And to add. 600 million firearms in private hands in the United States.
The question shouldn't be,"why are there so many firearm related deaths in this country.", but why are there so few?

exiledonmainstreet said...


Unknown Dumski wrote:
"Yeah right, because if the woman hadn't used a gun the man would still have died somehow."

If the woman had an ounce of common sense and followed common gun safety rules the man would not have died. I realize the concepts of freedom and responsibility are foreign to you.

Dumski is clearly too stupid to own a gun. You would certainly endanger yourself and others. I am all in favor of Democrats and Leftists being forbidden to own guns. You are all too violent and braindead.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Actually, I should applaud the leftist distaste for guns. It's why a Bernie supporter fired a zillion rounds at unarmed people in a baseball field and managed to get only himself killed.

He was a leftist who was, thank God, as incompetent with guns as the media is at reporting facts and Democrats are at governing.

Clyde said...

Speaking of dangerous videos, we have this candidate via the New York Daily News:

Pregnant North Carolina woman mows down shirtless purse thief with her SUV in Walmart parking lot

Whoa! He's charged with felony breaking, larceny and misdemeanor property damage, while she's charged with misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon. I don't think there's a jury in North Carolina that will convict her.

Clyde said...

felony breaking and entering...

Bad Lieutenant said...

"Briefly, bigger bullets, cartridges, and/or guns don't always equal more penetration. There are many factors."

Just for instance, Ann, since I didn't give you examples,

A 9mm (.356 caliber, in inches) FMJ military pistol bullet fired from a Beretta M9 will penetrate deeper than a .45 caliber (11.4mm dia.) FMJ military pistol bullet fired from a Colt m1911a1.

+P+ rounds have more energy than target loads.

A full metal jacketed round of same size and muzzle energy will penetrate deeper than a hollowpoint, frangible, or soft lead bullet.

All bullets are at maximum velocity and energy at the muzzle and they exit, hence "muzzle velocity." Some bullets, due to their shape or weight, lose velocity, and therefore energy, faster than others. (You're probably thinking that this particular distinction is trivial at a range of 1 foot from the muzzle, and you are correct.)

You can also hand load a round of ammunition with very little powder so that however impressive it may look, the bullet is actually not traveling very fast or a with much energy. These are commonly referred to as squib loads. (The danger with handloading is that human imperfection is more likely than inconsistency from volume produced Factory ammunition.

But people can be very good at this, and many of the very finest shooters hand load their own ammunition with impressive consistency and quality. Obviously they use machines, at a smaller scale. It's not like throwing knobs of butter and squeezes of lemon into a frying pan to make a butter lemon sauce for your red snapper.

People in the gun culture can talk about this stuff all day. Any questions you have will be answered by experts with courtesy, pleasure and good information.

Bad Lieutenant said...

JAORE, he's not at all scared, and firing one-handed he seems to have good control of the weapon under recoil, but it is heavy as a mother, what, 4lbs?, and he is a little guy, so the shakes don't astound me.

David said...

Gospace said...
David said...
I can see why they thought the book would work. If you shoot from only a foot away, the bullet does not have much time to pick up speed.

The bullet starts slowing down once it exits the barrel and gasses are no longer expanding behind it....


Really? Oh my God that never occurred to me. Does it slow down a lot in that first foot or so? Maybe that's why they thought he would be safe?

iowan2 said...

"They are ruthlessly enforced by range safety officers at most ranges. You let the muzzle swing out of line of your targets and esp if it comes close to crossing the body of anyone else, and you will be out of there so fast your head will spin"

I have never been to a gun range, or encountered a range safety officer. I did have a father, who makes the gun range safety officer sound like a introvert scared of their own shadow. My point is, why do lefties tout education as the solution to every problem (teen pregnancy, drug abuse, etc) except fire arms, they just need to be banned. The second point is, dads cannot be replaced in the rearing children equation.

Michael said...

Inga has a point. Years ago in the Bay Area it was customary for the latins to fire guns into the air to celebrate the New Year. Several interviewed said the bullets went into space.

Dave from Minnesota said...

The question shouldn't be,"why are there so many firearm related deaths in this country.", but why are there so few?

I believe the criminal rate of legal conceal and carry holders is somewhere around the crime rate of infants. Almost zero.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

How could he possibly have thought the book would protect him?

How could she have possible thought it either? If her story is true, she is ALMOST as dumb as he was.

Dave from Minnesota said...

NRA says, "It is people that kill people not guns."

Yeah right, because if the woman hadn't used a gun the man would still have died somehow.

Trumpski tautological thinking.


Maybe she would have shot an arrow at him instead. Maybe he would have car surfed at 60 mph down the highway. When you are young and stupid and want to do things to get YouTube hits, you probably will do all kinds of risky behavior.

If they would have taken NRA gun safety classes, this guy would still be alive. I was taught basic gun safety from my dad and grandpa. You never point even an unloaded gun at someone, let alone a loaded one let alone shot one at someone.

Dave from Minnesota said...

Fen at 10:29 and 10:32 PM. That's what I was taught even when it was just an air gun.

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

The number of people killed in YouTube video stunts is nothing compared to deaths caused by bathtub accidents.

Daniel Jackson said...

This whole story should be called "Monalisa Smiles."

I cannot help but dwell on the similarities (and incredible irony) this stunt and the William Tell Act of Bill and Joan Vollmer Burroughs. There are a few interesting differences such as Bill and Joan were in Mexico, they were high on drugs, and Bill shot low. Here we have the gender roles reversed, the couple with Mexican Sounding Names live in the US, and Monalisa shot high.

Monalisa had the foresight to handle the communications on the day of the shooting, setting up the Go Pros, and going along with what has to be the STUPIDEST idea in the 21st century. I wonder if any of her friends and family might have pointed out how much a loser Pedro was and how wonderful he was back and she was going to have his second child?

And from what that little guy wearing shorts and the funny head gear demonstrated, there is a bit of a kick in the upward direction from discharging a rocket from that cannon.

Yep. Sounds like a replay of the Joan Vollmer death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Vollmer#Death

There are some who might say Burroughs got away with murder; looks like Monalisa may get to smile as well.

Brando said...

Never underestimate how dumb some people are. Did it not occur to this guy to test fire through the book with oh I don't know something that's not a human being on the other side of it?

urbane legend said...

Inga said...
Idiot gun lovers.

Yes, those people who buy .32 pistols.

This is a very sad story considering the children involved. But, as some many have pointed out, stupid people doing stupid things die every day in diverse ways. A gun was the method, not the cause.

John Nowak said...

Did it not occur to this guy to test fire through the book with oh I don't know something that's not a human being on the other side of it?

Or watch the episodes where Mythbusters where Adam and Jamie repeatedly blew holes entirely through books?

Trumpit said...

Not one (right-wing) male commentator mentioned the reason for possessing a .50 caliber pistol in the first place. I believe the reason is phallic. You know what I mean. All you old farts know that your penis is of sub-optimal size & hardness when erect, and a useless appendage. Frankly, your dick and balls are gross, and so are your guns. I would outlaw guns based on esthetics if for no other reason. I would neuter you guys as well.

Brando said...

"Or watch the episodes where Mythbusters where Adam and Jamie repeatedly blew holes entirely through books?"

Yeah--I gotta say, this almost strikes me as "too dumb to be believable" but then people can be very, very dumb.

Especially with a gun like that--it's not like doing it with a BB gun.

Brando said...

Even if I thought the bullet wouldn't penetrate the book, I'd be wondering if something with that power would cause my wrists to break just from holding the book. That's the sort of force that would knock you flat.

JAORE said...

"Years ago in the Bay Area it was customary for the latins to fire guns into the air to celebrate the New Year. Several interviewed said the bullets went into space."

Happens in 'Nawlins too. They have PSA's every year.

John Nowak said...

I've been watching a lot of Poirot recently and I have a mental image of David Suchet saying, "...And then, madamoissell, you exchanged the blanks for live ammunition."

But seriously, yeah, just stupid at work.

urbane legend said...

Trumpit said...
Not one (right-wing) male commentator mentioned the reason for possessing a .50 caliber pistol in the first place. I believe the reason is phallic.

Those of us who can, do. Those who are inadequate psychoanalyze.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Fen said...

Violation of the 4 basic laws of gun safety:

The three I learned were:

1) Never point the gun at someone you don't intend to shoot.
2) Never shoot at someone you don't intend to kill.
3) Never kill someone you don't intend to eat.

They have served me well.

Brando said...

"The three I learned were:

1) Never point the gun at someone you don't intend to shoot.
2) Never shoot at someone you don't intend to kill.
3) Never kill someone you don't intend to eat.

They have served me well."

How did that intruder taste? I hope he wasn't Chinese or you'd be hungry again in a half hour.

Sigivald said...

Only a fool or a rich collector buys a .50 Deagle.

(They're ... impressive toys, but both they and their ammunition are stupidly expensive, bulky, and ludicrous.

At least a normal human being can afford to shoot the .44 version.

I mean, I own ludicrous guns, but at least they're cheaper ones.)

Only a complete fool shoots it at someone in the same room thinking a book will stop it.

And I don't even have words for how complete a fool you have to be to be the guy holding the book going into this.

(Contra Brando, note that since firing the gun doesn't break wrists or knock the shooter over, it's very difficult for it to do either to the book-holder, since the net force involved is the same.

Bullets damage you by tearing up flesh because all the force is concentrated in a half-inch [in this case] diameter area that basically tears rather than pushing the whole body back; stopping it with a book lets the arms act as shock absorbers, as well as the mass of the presumably large book, itself.

Outside of movies, people don't get knocked back by being shot; they fall over because of damage or shock or panic reaction, not the mechanical force of the projectile.)

Rusty said...

trumpit @ 10:13
Well bless your heart.

gregq said...

Mark said...
And people object when it is pointed out some absolute morons are gun nuts.

The next time someone argues for conceal carry, I am going to think of the decision making shown here.


The next time someone argues for the NYT v. Sullivan decision, I'm going to point out some absolutely dishonest people are reporters, & therefore they should have no 1st Amendment protections.

The pen is mightier than the sword. If we get to ban all rights that will be misused, the place to start is with the 1st Amendment, not the Second.

And I'm sure President Trump will be happy to throw all you leftists in jail, once the 1st is gone

gregq said...

Unknown said...
NRA says, "It is people that kill people not guns."

Yeah right, because if the woman hadn't used a gun the man would still have died somehow.

Trumpski tautological thinking.


Really? Are you incapable of reading? Because your point was answered before you even made it.

They were young idiots trying to make a viral video, to make money, by doing something that looks so dangerous that lots of people will want to watch it.

So, yes, if they hadn't had the gun, they would have done something just as dumb with something else.

This way they only killed him, no innocent bystanders were hurt. That's not even close to the worst that could have happened

Jupiter said...

"(Contra Brando, note that since firing the gun doesn't break wrists or knock the shooter over, it's very difficult for it to do either to the book-holder, since the net force involved is the same."

Not the net force. The net change in momentum.

James Smith said...

Urbane Legend,
The .32 ACP was the favorite caliber of no less than John M. Browning himself. His personal carry weapon was a .32 he had designed. Its also very popular in Europe.

Sad day said...

No innocent bystanders hurt?? How about their three years old child and unborn baby. This had nothing to do with gun rights, it's about putting decisions

Rusty said...

Mark said...
"And people object when it is pointed out some absolute morons are gun nuts."

Yes indeed. But even more absolute morons are leftists and they've killed more people.

"The next time someone argues for conceal carry, I am going to think of the decision making shown here."
You're too late. All states except two have a workable concealed carry law.