7-year-old Bay Area Boy Injured While Target Shooting in El Dorado County

September 2, 2014 11:00 am · 68 comments

A 7-year-old Bay Area boy was accidentally shot in the chest Saturday while shooting target practice at his family’s property in El Dorado County, according to the county’s Sheriff’s Office.

The family owns property in Georgetown and was shooting target practice at a 40-yard range they had built there.

Two people were shooting at the time of the accident, including the boy, who was using a .22-caliber rifle with the help of his father, according to the El Dorado County Sheriff’s Office.

Others were watching the boy and another man shoot and didn’t notice any ricochets, but the boy suddenly clutched his chest and said it hurt, sheriff’s officials said.

The boy’s father checked the boy’s chest and found a small hole in his T-shirt and that he was bleeding.

The father took the boy to the Georgetown fire station and he was taken by helicopter to a Sacramento hospital for treatment. Sheriff’s officials did not have an update on his condition this morning.

The boy’s exact city of residence was not provided by the Sheriff’s Office.

Mark September 2, 2014 at 11:02 AM

Is the boy from Claycord?

PhilthyPHRESH September 2, 2014 at 11:11 AM

It’s not the girl that shot her instructor with an Uzi, is it? She’s an assassin.

BusBoy September 2, 2014 at 11:11 AM

A quote from the Sheriff about this incident… “Still, Becker said that while it all looked “relatively safe, firearms are tools, just like any tools. People get hurt by tools and accidents happen.”

Stater of the Obvious September 2, 2014 at 11:12 AM

Guns are dangerous even in the hands of trained professionals. If you want to play with guns you have to accept the risks.

Hope the kid recovers.

Kirkwood September 2, 2014 at 11:15 AM

I believe doctors discovered a bullet fragment in the boy’s chest. It appears the shooters were in the right place doing things correctly. It is not a perfect world, things happen.

This is a non-issue.

Pucky September 2, 2014 at 11:17 AM

#2 is an idiot….#4 is right on!

that one guy September 2, 2014 at 11:33 AM

@ 5….you are a non issue!

Horse n around September 2, 2014 at 11:34 AM

Please don’t even acknowledge what #2 even stated. Also agree with #4

Wierd September 2, 2014 at 11:40 AM

Usually the occasional splashback doesn’t really have enough power to cause much of an injury, assuming you are wearing safety glasses.

Marianne September 2, 2014 at 11:58 AM

Prayers for the boy, wishing him to recover soon.

Beacon September 2, 2014 at 12:25 PM

How does a ricochet have enough force to seriously injure someone? Lead is so soft it seems the energy would be absorbed on impact. I’m not implying it was anything other than a ricochet but I’m curious about the experiences other shooters have had in this area.

As September 2, 2014 at 1:11 PM

Hope he is ok

concord res September 2, 2014 at 1:47 PM

Okay, so is he from Claycord or something? What’s the connection here?

mwo1859 September 2, 2014 at 1:48 PM

Atleast no anti gun democrats chimed in on the this

OS September 2, 2014 at 1:50 PM

@Beacon, not all bullets are lead, .22’s also come in copper and brass.

Aunt Mary September 2, 2014 at 2:17 PM

Can’t wait for “Aspirin aka Just Sayin’ aka Indie” to chime in with something like this;
“Will you insane gun nuts be happy when all our children are dead”.
There…………now you can go back to your ranting elsewhere. We have your number.

Caring Country Gal September 2, 2014 at 2:49 PM

Praying for full recovery of this brave young man and his family too for strength. Dad, you acted quick, being extremely attentive to your son and very responsible. Kudos for doing a great job and surely will be a hero beyond Dad always being a hero in the eyes of your son for life. Utmost respect to you sir. May peace be with you all.

Wierd September 2, 2014 at 3:07 PM

@OS/Beacon, but even copper jacketed bullets should not have enough energy, coming directly back at you, to cause an injury requiring hospitalization in the described scenario. I’ve been hit by splashback at 15 yards shooting steel plates with copper jacketed rounds and it can cause a slight nick on your face, but nothing requiring a helicopter ride. These guys were shooting at 40 yards? Must be a little more to this.

PhilthyPHRESH September 2, 2014 at 3:14 PM

@6 sorry, but calling me that brings you down to my supposed level.

Nick September 2, 2014 at 3:23 PM

As a trainer target shooter, most richochets are the cause of improper target setup. In that the targets are setup at perpendicular to the shooter. They SHOULD be setup at a slight angle to side or most commonly down, so that any richochets travel down into ground or away from shooter, and not directly back at the shooter. I always setup my targets at a slight angle and have never had any ricochet problems. That being said .22 bullets come out at high velocity and can travel up to one mile, so a ricochet would definitely have power to enter someones chest even after traveling down range and back at the shooter.

Kirk September 2, 2014 at 4:14 PM

There is a u tube video of a guy shooting a .50 cal rifle in the desert, the target is 300 yards away, the guy shoots, there is a pause, then a whirring noise. Then the earmuffs he is wearing get smacked off his head.

The guys next to him are in shock, then one of them says “that’s enough for today.”

The bullet bounced right back to its source. Odds were incalculable.

Hope the kid is okay. Bad luck more than anything else.

Marissa September 2, 2014 at 4:33 PM

So sorry for him you have to watch for ricochets they aren’t always obvious.

Aspirin September 2, 2014 at 5:30 PM

Another gun accident. Anyone keeping score? Must be in the thousands by now. The Brady Center stated that over 100,000 gun related accidents, deaths, and crimes occur every year in the USA. Guns makes us safer? Really? When you marry guns and stupidity you get a predictable result.

Aspirin September 2, 2014 at 5:35 PM

Re: Aunt Mary #16. I am also “Just Sayin'” but I am not “Indie” so you are wrong again. My goodness you are so wrong about so many things!

Aspirin September 2, 2014 at 5:44 PM

Calculate the ratio of crimes prevented vs crimes and accidents committed by gun owners and you’ll barely begin to see the picture showing the fallacy that was foisted on the American people by a wrongheaded Republican Supreme Court’s five to four decision upholding the incorrect interpretation of the Second Amendment. This Decision ranks right up there with another divided Court’s decision on Citizens United which gave personhood to corporations. Both of these decisions are causing incalculable harm to America.

Atticus Thraxx September 2, 2014 at 6:01 PM

You cannot calculate the ratio unless you have all the variables. Since we have no way into a criminals mind, how would we measure how many crimes were prevented by gun ownership?
If you keep trotting out the same tired crap and and that as the crux of your argument, you’ll get the same results your “enjoying” right now. None. The insistence of the left to disarm people who do not, have not and will not commit crimes with them is the root cause of the failure to try and curb gun violence. The “some people can’t be trusted, so no one can be trusted” mindset is intellectually lazy and takes away focus and effort. You were smart you’d engage responsible gun owners and make them part of the solution instead of just leaving them fume whilst you fumble about ineffectively while making life tough for them.

Oh Aspirin... September 2, 2014 at 6:28 PM

You are giving me a headache!

M.O.A. September 2, 2014 at 6:36 PM

Aspirin, should’nt you be out on a ledge somewhere?

Beacon September 2, 2014 at 8:27 PM


There are countless examples of what happens at the intersection of guns and stupidity. Read tomorrow’s paper and you’ll likely see a few prime examples out of Oakland, Richmond or Antioch. However, in this case, it appears they were shooting safely. By exercising safety and control in shooting, driving, skiing, etc., one can minimize, but never completely eliminate, the risk.

Tom September 2, 2014 at 8:56 PM


Mimi (original) September 2, 2014 at 10:43 PM


Kevin September 2, 2014 at 11:34 PM

I was at a range firing my new AR for the first time and missed the target while adjusting my site. The round hit the metal bar that was holding the target and cut the bar like a knife through the butter! Upon impact, the bullet broke up and piece of it ricocheted straight back and hit me on the belly. Luckily, I was wearing a thick fleece with a shirt underneath and I got hit right next to zipper where the fleece is thick. I got a nasty black bruise and hurt like hell. Had it hit me in the eyes, face, head, or neck, I probably wouldn’t be telling you this! Basically, I got hit by an AR round(.223) and lived to tell about it!! And I am not making this up.

The bottom line is that guns can be very dangerous, even if you’re a professional law enforcement, military or etc. Just like, you can be a very safe driver, but you can still get into an accident. Being a safe driver or gun owner only reduces the risk, not eliminating it.

Phil September 3, 2014 at 7:11 AM

@Atticus #26 – exactly correct!

@Aspirin #25 – you state that “a wrongheaded Republican Supreme Court’s five to four decision upholding the incorrect interpretation of the Second Amendment….” So tell us (based fully on your legal background – not emotionalism or other claptrap) why the decision was “incorrect.” I’m assuming that you have a vast knowledge of Constitutional law and history (including an ability to fully discuss the Federalist Papers) which would allow you to make such a declaration.

Enlighten us, please. And also please share your vast CV with us so we can be honored by the mere presence of you on this blog. Given that, we expect to see you on the US Supreme Court in the next few months…

I’ve owned firearms for ~40 years, and yet NOBODY in our family has been hurt by them. That’s NOBODY! We have all been trained. Have they saved my life or my family’s lives? Yes! Do I continue to carry concealed? Yes! I am not willing to put myself or my family’s lives at risk because of some feel-good claptrap being pushed by the anti-gun crowd.

Deal with it, chump! Life isn’t about blowing sunshine and rainbows outta your ass while dancing around with flowers in your hair.

Laura Zah September 3, 2014 at 8:31 AM

Asspirin, how can you waste time inventing anti 2nd Amendment arguments when bees are drinking your birdbath dry. Get out there with your Wiccan book of spells and ward them away!

Stater of the Obvious September 3, 2014 at 8:49 AM

One thing I’ve learned about guns and in particular gun owners over the years is that guns kill people and people with guns kill people. BOTH SIDES OF THE DEBATE ARE RIGHT!!!

Most gun advocates live in denial that their guns pose any sort of threat to them or their family despite what all the statistics say. Owning a gun vastly increases your chances of being killed by a gun. If you are a woman and your husband owns a gun “to keep you and your home safe”, that gun is more likely to kill you than all the others on the planet combined. Think about that for a minute.

Gun owners are all convinced that the 2 hour safety class they took, along with the DVD they bought, makes them a firearms expert. Cops are convinced they are experts but are generally laughed at by military types for their ineptitude, and military types are laughed at by elite military types for being amateurs. Truth be told, they are all right. If you own a gun to “keep you safe”, you are an amateur. Guns don’t keep you safe.

If you own a gun because shooting makes your winkie hard, then that’s an honest answer and I can somewhat respect that….so long as you accept and admit the risks and when that ricochet kills your child, or if your child blows his head off playing with your sex toy, then man up and admit you are to blame.

Flame away.

Rollo tomasi September 3, 2014 at 9:52 AM

@ #35:

I sympathize with you. You haven’t found anything to make your wife’s winkie hard. Good luck in your continued search.

@Stater of the Obvious September 3, 2014 at 10:04 AM

You make some very bold statements backed up by some vague and misleading data concluding with a very far left and über bleeding heart conclusions.

The only thing obvious with your statement is that your opinion is slanted and spun to reach a predetermined conclusion and then throw insults. I am surprised you didn’t call gun owners racists.

Stater of the Obvious September 3, 2014 at 2:36 PM

@37 and you do nothing but take cheap ad hominem shots.

My data is rock solid and its apolitical. Math doesn’t have a liberal or a conservative bias.

People who own guns for personal safety are either oblivious to the data, or ignorant of it. Having a gun in your home vastly increases the chances that someone in your home will die from a gunshot. FACT.


Rollo Tomasi September 3, 2014 at 4:11 PM

“Having a gun in your home vastly increases the chances that someone in your home will die from a gunshot. FACT.”

Yep. And if that happens, it will be an uninvited intruder intent on harming me or my family. Wanna roll the dice?

Stater of the Obvious September 3, 2014 at 4:26 PM

I will roll that dice any day of the week. Dice is a game of odds and the odds are not in your favor if you own a gun. Far more people are killed by their own guns or by guns owned by family members than are killed by intruders.

Like I said gun owners who think they are safer are either oblivious to the data or ignorant of it. Now that I have educated you on the facts I’m going to file you under “oblivious”.

@40 September 3, 2014 at 5:27 PM

So having a gun increases the chances of someone being killed with a gun in my home.

This is what your liberal priests told you?

Ever consider that “factual unimpeachable data” is merely stating that someone was killed or injured. Meaning that the data is constructed from injuries or deaths of people, not the family but the intruders as well.

It’s similar to the “a child is killed every minute” data that came out a few years ago. The only way to construct the findings was to include 18 year old gangsta “youths” who were killing each other at a record pace.

FYI that was the implication of #39s second statement, you miss the obvious. Back to the church of Hilary with you.

Atticus Thraxx September 3, 2014 at 5:48 PM

He’s not completely wrong. The presence of a weapon in a home compared to a home that does not, everything else being equal, would make it more likely. Can’t argue with that.
I tell myself this is not a typical household and we’re not typical gunowners. Maybe I’m right, maybe I’m wrong. But I can tell you this, trouble comes our way and we have even 10s of seconds of warning, that trouble is in trouble. Word up.

Stater of the Obvious September 3, 2014 at 6:01 PM


not what I said at all. The data is unimpeachable. Far more people are killed in their home as a result of gun accidents than are killed by intruders. FACT. As a matter of fact more people kill family members that they suspect are intruders than actually kill real intruders. Just last week a 7 year old child was shot in Florida by his gun toting grandmother looking for mythical intruders.


for every time a gun in or around the home was used in self-defense, or in a legally justified shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

That’s one self-defense shooting for 22 accidental, suicidal or criminal shootings — hardly support for the notion that having a gun handy makes people safer.

Keep ignoring the statistics until you become one.

Stater of the Clueless September 3, 2014 at 6:14 PM

Having a car at home vastly increases the chances that some one in your home will die from a car accident. Fact.

Having a knife at home vastly increases the chances that some one in your home will die from a stab wound. Fact.

Having a spoon at home vastly increases the chances that some one in your home will die from diabetes. Fact.

We get it. You are scared of inanimate objects. I’ll call the waaaambulance. Guns are here to stay until something better comes along. Get over it. If you are not going to do anything about the real problem (the human factor),then STFU!

Curious PH Voter September 3, 2014 at 6:20 PM


Everyone who suffers a gun accident in the home tol themselves the same thing, it won’t happen to me, I’m different.

...... September 3, 2014 at 6:22 PM

@stater #38…

While math doesn’t have a liberal or conservative bias (in general), the selection of data to support a statistical analysis is certainly NOT apolitical.

The data you selected may be “rock solid and apolitical.” However, the selection of one report with one or two data sets to support your preconceived notion is biased and statistically insignificant. My gut feeling is that the data sets you selected (looking at the source) is NOT apolitical, however.

If I pick one or two reports with one or two data sets, I can prove ANYTHING!

Learn about statistics before shooting off your mouth….. so to speak.

Rollo Tomasi September 3, 2014 at 6:33 PM

Actually, the odds are heavily in my favor due to my training and every day safety measures, which include biometric safes that I can open in the dark without leaving my bedside.

You forgot to include the number of firearm defenses. Why? Oh that’s right – they go unreported. How many criminals have been interviewed to find out how often they decided not to victimize someone because there was reason to believe the intended victim was armed? You hand wringers refuse to ask some important questions.

I’m going to file you under “duped”.

Stater of the Obvious September 3, 2014 at 6:53 PM

The data comes from police reports.

..... September 3, 2014 at 6:53 PM

@stater #43…

Once again, you trot out one story – and from that, you manufacture all of the other “statistics.” Again, your claim is statistically invalid.

Let’s see the RAW data (and the source) that supports your claims that you made.

Atticus Thraxx September 3, 2014 at 6:53 PM

Clearly you haven’t been paying attention….I am different. And armed. And rational. And reasonable. And sober. And trained. I’ve tattooed my blood type on six different parts of my body just to hedge my bet though. My wife is on her own, she won’t take to the needle. 😉

Atticus Thraxx September 3, 2014 at 7:00 PM

Raw data?

Anon September 3, 2014 at 7:41 PM

Isn’t it sad to see so many jump on the overreaction train to OMG-ville.

Stater of the Obvious September 3, 2014 at 7:41 PM

I’m the only one here posting links to data. Nuff said.

Laura Zah September 3, 2014 at 8:01 PM

If you have a jackass in the home like “Stater of the Oblivious” chances are likely he will shoot off his mouth. Fact!

Stater of the Obvious September 3, 2014 at 10:32 PM

What worries me most is how quickly the gun proponents resort to personal insults instead of using facts to defend their position. These are exactly the sort of people who shouldn’t be allowed to own guns.

Sad but True September 4, 2014 at 11:16 AM

There’s a sad irony that the story right next to this one on Claycord is about Paul Starzyk who was shot and killed by a man who was using his legally held gun to try and kill his wife and kids.

Rollo Tomasi September 4, 2014 at 11:31 AM

@ #55:

“If you own a gun because shooting makes your winkie hard, then that’s an honest answer and I can somewhat respect that….so long as you accept and admit the risks and when that ricochet kills your child, or if your child blows his head off playing with your sex toy, then man up and admit you are to blame.”

And that’s not a paragraph full of personal insults directed at all gun owners? Typical hand wringing, hypocritical, pseudointellectual liberal.

Stater of the Obvious September 4, 2014 at 12:29 PM

Where are the personal insults? who exactly did I insult personally??? I don’t think you know what a personal insult is Rollo.

Rollo Tomasi September 4, 2014 at 12:48 PM

So blanket insults are somehow more palatable? OK.

Proponents of gun bans are weak willed sycophants prone to repeating the dubious claims of those who would willingly and with purpose strip constitutional rights from others. They live in a world where they believe there is no evil and that somehow laws and those that enforce them will protect them from crimes being committed against them. They are a part of the pseudointellectual world of liberals who believe those who disagree with them are simply wrong or ignorant. Such is the level of their “tolerance.”

Is that better?

Stater of the Obvious September 4, 2014 at 1:35 PM

It wasn’t a blanket insult or a personal insult.

As for your ham fisted attempt a logic (that was a personal insult btw)…nobody believes that the world is free from evil, its just that those of us who understand math and can read simple spread sheet know that owning a gun won’t protect us from evil, in fact the opposite is true…gun owners and their families are much more likely to suffer a gun death than non gun owners.

I do disagree with you quite simply because you are wrong. You aren’t ignorant, you know the data and the risks, you are just deluded….either that or shooting your gun makes your winkie hard and you just can’t quit it.

Atticus Thraxx September 4, 2014 at 1:59 PM

Then WTF was it Ob? A blanket compliment? Already on weak ground you went personal and Rollo handed you your ass.

Rollo Tomasi September 4, 2014 at 2:07 PM

OK skippy, you win. I’ll keep my guns and hard winkie, and you can stay curled up in the corner in fear of an inanimate object.

How’s your wife’s winkie, by the way? (Personal insult)

Stater of the Obvious September 4, 2014 at 3:49 PM

I’m not afraid Rollo. I’m so unafraid, I see any need to don’t own a gun. You are the one who is afraid of the bogeyman, not me.

Rollo Tomasi September 4, 2014 at 4:17 PM

Is it OK if I keep my fire extinguishers? People who have houses made of combustible materials are at a far greater risk of house fires.

Kirk September 4, 2014 at 5:05 PM

If guns are so useless and sure to bring sudden death to the owner, why do the police and military carry them?

Atticus Thraxx September 4, 2014 at 5:22 PM

Bogeyman? You got a problem with bogymen too? No one is threatening you, chill out homecookin’.

....... September 4, 2014 at 5:28 PM

The data comes from “police reports”? What kind of supporting data is that???

That’s a pile of crap, stater…..be specific! You have no idea of what is statistically significant.

Let’s have the proof, buttercup. Not some meaningless statement like you made. And posting one story with one link to sources of a liberal bent is not statistically valid.

Learn about statistics, idiot! And tell me why peace officers don’t have that level of injury in their households while you’re at it.

Question Askerer September 7, 2014 at 7:03 PM

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: