I’ve seen several of those “Mythbuster” shows where they create a head and torso out of ballistics gel and then fire a weapon at it. How hard can it be for someone in the media to think… yeah, we could do that. Make a ballistics gel head and torso, get a 28 gauge shotgun loaded with birdshot, and fire at it from, say, 30 yards. And then other distances. It would PROVE nothing, but could add to what is known about a shooting accident involving the V.P. Regardless of outcome, it probably should be checked out. The outcome might be anything from 30 yards being about right, to the victim was much closer or much further away. You would think someone would be interested if it turned out that the victim was either much closer or much further away than 30 yards.
Or did someone already do this and I just missed it?
I don’t see why it matters. Gun safety issue are pretty cut and dried. If you shoot someone, it is automatically 100% your fault unless it is some pretty obscure situation.
Here are some Gun/Hunting Commandments. Cheney was in clear violation of #6, #10, #1, #3. Four out of 10 broken commandements on one accident is not good. There is little to be learned from experiments. A 28 gauge shotgun is a short-range weapon. It doesn’t really matter is it was 15, 30, or 50 yards. There are no circumstances in that range where he would not be 100% negligent.
Always point the muzzle in a safe direction.
Treat every firearm or bow with the same respect you would show a loaded
Be sure of your target and what is in front of and beyond your target.
Unload firearms and unstring conventional bows when not in use.
Handle the firearms, arrows and ammunition carefully.
Avoid horseplay with firearms. Never climb a fence, a tree or a ladder with a loaded firearm or bow and arrows.
Know your safe zone-of-fire and stick to it.
Your safe zone-of-fire is that area or direction in which you can safely fire a shot. It is “down range” at a shooting facility. In the field it is that mental image you draw in your mind with every step you take. Be sure you know where your companions are at all times. Never swing your gun or bow out of your safe zone-of-fire. Know the safe carries when there are persons to your sides, in front of, or behind you. If in doubt, never take a shot. When hunting, wear daylight fluorescent orange so you can be seen from a distance or in heavy cover.
Control your emotions when it comes to safety.
Wear hearing and eye protection.
Don’t drink alcohol or take drugs before or while handling firearms or bow and arrows.
Be aware of additional circumstances which require added caution or safety awareness.
I’m not sure what skullduggery you think is going on that would require such a test, but there are enough gun experts out there that I’m pretty sure they can determine if the parameters of the accident, as described, are realistic.
Given a particular gun, choke setting, and load, you pretty much know what the dispersal pattern will be at a given distance. (If you don’t know these things, then your test wouldn’t do much good at replicating the scenario anyway.) And they know just how many of the total number of shot (most of them) got taken out of the victim. So they can probably do a pretty good job of estimating distance.
It certainly wasn’t a lot closer than 30 yards, because the guy still has his head.
Remember that the re-creation was a full body shot, but that Whittington was supposedly in a ditch or other low area and only caught a fraction of the pellet spread. The re-creation also used 8 instead of 7 1/2 sized shot. The pattern is consistent with a partial hit at 30 yards, but neither confirms the incident nor rules out other scenarios.
But the answer to the OP is that the media thought of it first thing and did it immediately and the results are all over the news.
Why would we care? The Vice President shot someone in a hunting accident at 30 yards. Will you suddenly decide it’s okay if it turns out to be 50 yards? Will you be doubly outraged if it turns out to be 15 yards? What’s the difference?